| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 132/08 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 04 September 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R Davidson ; G Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Orlowski v Bridgestone New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed respondent breached collective employment agreement (“CEA”) by requiring transfer of work shift against will – Applicant sought direction back to original shift – Respondent argued decision to transfer applicant justified; alternatively if personal grievance found, actions contributed significantly to grievance – Applicant given final warning for breaching code of conduct in CEA – Respondent decided to transfer applicant to another shift – Respondent argued relationship between applicant and co-workers on original shift deteriorated to extent health and safety of employees at risk – Respondent conceded no unfettered right of involuntary transfer – Authority found respondent relied on transfer provisions in CEA referring to transfer by implication or without specificity of when may be undertaken – Authority found CEA neither conclusively forbade unilateral transfer nor unequivocally allowed transfer – Found conclusion supported by respondent’s action of endeavouring to make new employees aware transfer possible – Found respondent had right to manage business and deploy labour in way to meet business needs pursuant to statute – Found could not be position that once employee settled in shift pattern, employer unable to change shift cycle – Found effect of CEA to allow respondent to make unilateral shift transfer but subject to right of disgruntled employee to challenge involuntary transfer by raising personal grievance – Authority satisfied from evidence of former workmates that applicant posed genuine threat to health and safety when employed on original shift – Authority rejected applicant’s argument respondent using health and safety arguments for improper motives – Authority also rejected applicant’s argument not forewarned of health and safety issue before disciplinary process – Authority found health and safety issue fairly discussed at disciplinary meeting and applicant given opportunity to respond – No unjustified disadvantage – Tyre builder |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of Unitec Institute of Technology v Henderson [2007] 4;NZELR 418 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 132_08.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |