| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Respondent sought to change applicant’s hours of work from 30 hours per week over four days to 30 hours per week over five days – Applicant claimed respondent not entitled to make changes without applicant’s agreement and that unjustifiably disadvantaged in employment – Applicant worked shorter hours for health reasons – In 2005 employment agreement (“2005 EA”), respondent introduced new term (“term”) that “current hours/days of work cannot be changed unless you agree” – Term not included in subsequent 2006 employment agreement (“2006 EA”) – Authority noted employers have right to reorganise business to become more efficient or enhance customer services, provided undertake genuine consultation process with affected staff and consider their views – Found critical issue in circumstances was breach of term requiring applicant’s agreement to change – Respondent argued that 2006 EA superseded term in 2005 EA – Authority found new document related only to salary matters, and express and explicit term in 2005 EA not vitiated by 2006 EA – Found if fair and reasonable employer wished to remove term from future agreements, obliged to at least draw employee’s attention to term’s absence before signing new agreement – Although respondent’s proposed changes to applicant’s hours were justifiable, applicant disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to secure applicant’s agreement to change – Disadvantage unjustified - Remedies – In ongoing employment relationship and to encourage successful employment relationships, Authority directed parties to resolve issue of compensation themselves – Bank Customer Service Officer |