| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 307/09 |
| Hearing date | 25 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 28 August 2009 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | A Russell ; N Bush |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Waitemata District Health Board v New Zealand Nurses Organisation |
| Summary | DISPUTE – First issue, whether collective employment agreement (“CEA”) entitled applicant to unilaterally alter existing roster for caseload midwives (“KYM”) – Current roster based on “continuity of care model” where midwives work in partnership with another midwife – Applicant claimed current roster created gaps in model as no cover available for midwifes rostered on days off or on leave – New roster would have two partnerships working alongside each other and provided 24 hour midwifery service – Respondent argued current roster part of CEA’s terms and conditions therefore could not be unilaterally altered – Authority found CEA entitled KYM to set their own roster, however, roster must ensure 24 hour midwifery service – Found applicant could not unilaterally implement new roster - Second issue, what obligations did parties have to support midwives if their caseload deemed unsafe under CEA – Found midwife determines whether workload reached safe practice limits – Found midwife must immediately involve respondent if limit reached – Found processes in CEA must be put into operation to support midwife – Third issue, meaning of 24 hours in CEA – Respondent claimed in absence of CEA specifying when 24 hours start and ends, 24 hours should be interpreted to mean from midnight to midnight – Authority commented CEA did not specify when 24 hours start and ends due to provision requiring KYM to determine roster – In Authority’s view, respondent’s interpretation goes beyond ordinary meaning – Questions answered |
| Result | Questions answered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s101(d);Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992;Nurses Amendment Act 1990 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Merchant Service Guild IUOW Inc v InterIsland Line A Division of Tranz Rail Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 510;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 307_09.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |