| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 152/06 |
| Hearing date | 12 Sep 2006 |
| Determination date | 03 November 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | G Davenport ; R Harrison |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Watson & Ors v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union & Anor |
| Other Parties | Mclean & Melief ; Toll NZ Consolidated Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Whether respondent could use change of hours clause of collective employment agreement (CEA") to change work arrangements of first applicants ("applicants") - Applicants worked as shunters at Lyttleton site - Respondent proposed new roster requiring applicants to work primarily from different site - Applicants claimed would increase safety hazards and breached prior assurances their "identity as Lyttleton shunters" would be preserved - Sought declaration "identity" assurance was term of employment that should not be changed without express agreement - Respondent contended change of hours clause and operations manual entitled it to require applicants to work under new roster and earlier arrangements did not preclude changes - Authority did not accept prior compromise between parties, with assurance of "identity", constituted new individual term for applicants - Respondent could not reasonably be taken to have waived rights to make changes provided for in CEA at any time in future - Real issue not whether job had particular "identity" but extent and basis on which CEA allowed changes to hours and location of work - Change sought by respondent more than change of hours - Rather, change in working environment and requirements of position which were part of conditions of employment - CEA and operating manual to be construed strictly - Clause relied upon by respondent did not provide for changes of work location or type - Applicants could not be required by terms of change of hours clause to work under proposed roster - In light of conclusion Authority need not consider other arguments - Applicants sought compensation for distress caused by respondent's actions - Matter a "dispute of rights" and remedy limited to declaration on application of CEA - Shunters" |
| Result | Declaration accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 152_06.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |