| Summary |
DISPUTE - Applicant employed for day work - Respondent proposed changes that would require applicant to work shifts - Applicant submitted entitled to benefit of terms of existing employment agreement - Alternatively, sought redundancy as job had disappeared - Respondent contended no entitlement to redundancy as applicant refused attempts at reconfirmation and/or redeployment doing shift work - During restructuring process applicant did not mention unwillingness to work shifts - However, not true to say respondent unaware of her position as it had attempted to place applicant on shifts before - Respondent subsequently gave notice of intent to change roster and indicated it would consider applicant as having decided to discontinue employment when she did not change position - Letter governing employment stated variation to hours “negotiable” - Created obligation changes would be by agreement - Fundamental difference between day work and shift work - Respondent not able to unilaterally change hours - In circumstances, respondent obligated to disestablish applicant’s position and deal with her in terms of management of change provisions in employment agreement - Proper for parties to engage under staff surplus provisions with view to reaching agreement - Leave reserved to return to Authority solely on issue of remedy - Authority considered respondent misinterpreted legal obligations but satisfied it did everything in its power to avoid terminating relationship and did not act in bad faith - Also noted decision relied very much on own facts - Transit Nurse |