| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 191/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 08 October 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Yarrell ; N Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | The Postal Workers' Union of Aotearoa v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant union sought determination whether instruction to members to perform cut-up was lawful or not – Cut-up was process where postal worker given additional work on top of their usual round – Called cut-up because involved cutting up another postal worker’s usual round because that worker unavailable – Applicant alleged respondent breached good faith in relation to instruction to perform cut up and subsequent disciplinary action – Respondent claimed collective employment agreement (“CEA”) provided contractual right to instruct postal workers to perform cut-up and subsequent actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Postal workers instructed to perform cut-up – Postal workers believed already at full capacity and respondent had other staff who could perform extra work without necessity for cut-up – Postal workers refused to perform cut-up - Authority found available to respondent to lawfully ask postal workers to perform cut-ups where, for whatever reason, was absence of labour to make deliveries and mail volumes below rostered hours – Found critical issue was mail volume – Found measurement of mail volume not exact science - Found in normal course of events, were processes by which postal workers could satisfy themselves mail volume was below rostered hours – However, found in present case appeared to respondent that entire branch refusing to perform cut-up which made normal arrangements impractical - Found available to respondent to propose cut-up in terms of relevant provisions of CEA – Found therefore request to perform cut-up lawful and reasonable instruction – Found that in disobeying instruction staff potentially putting themselves in breach of misconduct provisions in CEA - Respondent issued staff that refused to perform cut-up with warnings – Applicant claimed respondent heavy handed in application of disciplinary procedure – Authority found was situation where genuine dispute between parties about application of provision in CEA making disciplinary sanctions inappropriate exercise of management prerogative – Found while was open to respondent to initiate disciplinary procedures was not situation where staff deliberately and mischievously challenging respondent’s right to manage - However, Authority accepted respondent’s submission not available to Authority to undo a disciplinary consequence already visited on staff – Authority satisfied respondent ought not to have taken disciplinary steps it did but as had done so, not able to be undone by Authority – However, found respondent may think it appropriate, given Authority’s view, to cancel warnings given to staff |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | The Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa & Anor v New Zealand Post Ltd unreported, K J Anderson, 4 May 2010, AA 208/10 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 191_10.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |