| Summary |
DISPUTE – Interpretation of Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant sought determination could implement on-call roster for Fire Safety Officers (“FSO”) and amend roster from time to time - Respondents claimed work rosters matter for negotiation and agreement and not for imposition by applicant - Central issue of dispute was meaning of clause 4.3.4 of CEA – Clause stated “…officers may be rostered on call in accordance with an availability roster and may be called out in the event of an emergency incident” - Applicant claimed clause capable of straightforward interpretation based on usual meaning of words used – Claimed clause entitled applicant to develop and modify rosters, following consultation, but without needing agreement – Respondents claimed clause contained lacuna – Claimed lacuna was failure to deal with how roster was to be changed – Respondents’ claimed on applicant’s interpretation applicant able to increase hours FSO might be on call - Authority looked at structure of clause as whole to discern how to apply it – Found other parts of the clause specifically referred to agreement being required – Found structure of clause seemed deliberate – Found plain meaning of clause was to give applicant right to place FSO on on-call roster and that could alter roster from time to time in accordance with operational requirements - Found, although not strictly matter on which asked to advance view, applicant had obligation under s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 to consult with affected employees in relation to any proposed changes to roster arrangements – However, consultation did not have to end with agreement |