| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 137/10 |
| Hearing date | 22 Mar 2010 - 24 Mar 2010 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 29 June 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Manning, A Paton ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch;Wellington |
| Parties | Taylor & Ors v Canterbury District Health Board |
| Other Parties | New Zealand Resident Doctors' Association |
| Summary | GOOD FAITH - DISPUTE - Respondent changed Resident Medical Officers (“RMO”) contractual entitlements for meal while on duty by withdrawing pre-packaged drinks from items available to select for meal - Respondent claimed notified second applicant of intention to change availability, reason for it, and entered into consultation resulting in change - Applicants claimed change breached custom and practice and was failure to properly consult over material change in conditions - Claimed respondent always intended to implement change and consultation a sham - Authority found issue to determine was whether respondent complied with legal obligations in implementing change - Found provision for free meal had been in successive employment agreements for over 50 years - Respondent claimed pursuant to management prerogative, was available to it to make changes to extent to which it funded RMO meals - Respondent claimed contractual entitlement simply required provision of meal and that expression “meal” not defined - Respondent relied on fact that changes made did not change basic nature or quality of service being provided to RMO - Respondent claimed applicants asking Authority to interpret provision when words in provision clear, unambiguous and could have only one meaning - Claimed no disputed interpretation - Respondent claimed obligation of good faith in s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) only required consultation where continuing employment affected, that is redundancy situations - Claimed even if consultation required consultation had in fact taken place - Applicants claimed unqualified provision to provide RMO with meal - Claimed any structural limitations on provision could only be effected by agreement - Claimed issue not whether meal included pre-packaged drink or not but whether respondent legally able to limit what RMO could chose to take for meal - Applicants disputed respondent’s contention had been historical changes to meal provision analogous to current change and which had been effected without consultation or agreement of second applicant - Applicants’ evidence preferred - Authority satisfied had been no analogous changes to meal provision without prior agreement between parties - Found that process previously used ought to have been used in present case, that is ought to be process of engagement between parties with view to reaching acceptable common ground - Found withdrawing availability of pre-packaged drinks was material change - Found even if respondent right that s4 ERA fundamentally concerned with redundancy situations found was not case with s100(d) ERA and code of good faith for public health sector in Schedule 1B ERA - Found clauses of employment agreement also created similar obligations - Found consultation was a sham - Found respondent had failed to fulfil legal obligations - Authority declared respondent breached its obligations under good faith obligations of ss4 and 100 and Schedule 1B ERA and like obligations in Schedule 5 of employment agreement - Respondent ordered to comply with its obligations under those provisions by engaging with second applicant in process of informed and meaningful consultation in accordance with its obligations according to law |
| Result | Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s100;ERA s100(d);ERA Schedule 1B cl2;ERA Schedule 1B cl4;ERA Schedule 1B cl5 |
| Cases Cited | The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: ASTE Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa and Ors v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;Gallagher v Watercare Services Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 511;Mawson v Auckland Area Health Board [1991] 3 NZLR 599;The Northland Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd v The Northland Dairy Workers' Union Inc. & Ors [1995] 2 ERNZ 201;OCS Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated [2006] ERNZ 762 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 137_10.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |