| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 29/02 |
| Determination date | 17 April 2002 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | B Corkill ; R Haultain |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Wellington City Transport Ltd v Paualaisa |
| Other Parties | New Zealand Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Authorities Employees Industrial Union of Workers (Wellington Branch) |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Video surveillance - Whether entitled to enact surveillance without consultation - Whether investigation valid - Collective Employment Contract provided specific procedures in relation to complaints and introduction of new technology - Complaints by members of public - Video surveillance enacted to investigate respondent - Surveillance showed irregularities with cash handling and ticket issuing - Upon interpretation of CEC able to initiate own report without informing applicant immediately - Applicant informed as soon as practicable - Counterclaim - Second respondent argued implementation of surveillance was introduction of new technology - Argued under CEC prior consultation necessary - Affect on employees not sufficient to warrant new technology status - Applicant entitled to carry out video surveillance operation - Respondents' counterclaims dismissed |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |