| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 231/08 |
| Determination date | 04 July 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | H White ; K Thompson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Veltmans and Anor v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court – Applicants married – First applicant (“V”) on sick leave - Second applicant (“W”) used staff travel privilege to purchase discounted flights for V to accompany him on business trip – Company policy for discounted employee travel prevents use if employee on sick leave or ACC unless approval granted – Disciplinary investigation revealed W facilitated seat upgrade for V where not purchased and contravened company code of conduct by facilitating improper use of crew transport – Respondent found actions constituted serious misconduct by both applicants – Final warnings issued – W demoted with salary reduced from $85,367.12 to $34,790 - Applicants claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged – Claimed sick leave and staff travel policy unreasonable under s104 and s105 ERA because unlawfully discriminates against sick and injured on grounds of disability and employment status – Applicants claimed numerous important points of law: whether employer’s interpretation of sick leave and staff travel policies discriminate unlawfully in breach of s21(1)(h) and s21(1)(k) Human Rights Act and/or s104 and s105 ERA; whether policies unreasonable; whether refusing to allow recording of disciplinary meetings is fair or reasonable; whether employer can discipline employee for breach of policy relating to benefit claimed to be beyond jurisdiction of Court; whether reduction in salary and demotion justifiable; and whether wording of policies ambiguous - Respondent denied claims and argued claims essentially questions of fact to be resolved by Authority in first instance - Authority found questions of fact and law arose – Enquiry relating to sick leave and travel policies against background of prohibited grounds of discrimination important question of law for purposes of ERA s178(2)(a) – Propositions in Hanlon v International Educational Foundation Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ followed – Found some questions domain of Authority at first instance, such as operation of W’s employment agreement – Likely that parties would seek de novo challenge later – Appropriate to exercise discretion to remove to Court |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s104;ERA s105;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(d);Human Rights Act 1993 s21(1)(h);Human Rights Act 1993 s21(1)(k) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 231_08.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |