Personal grievance claim rejected

Press, 1 June 1985, Page 5

Personal grievance claim rejected

PA Wellington The Arbitration Court has rejected a personal grievance claim brought by three Air New Zealand cabin crew as a result of their suspension after refusing to fly because of fatigue. In its ruling released yesterday, the Court said the actions of Air New Zealand did not affect the workers' employment to their disadvantage, and it had not been established that the workers had, in fact, personal grievances as defined by the Industrial Relations Act. One member, of the Court, Mr E. W. J. Ball, dissented from the decision. The workers were members of the cabin crew on a Boeing 747 return flight from London to Auckland. The flight stopped over at Los Angeles for 18 hours and was scheduled to continue to Auckland via Honolulu on the evening of April 6, 1984, the Court said in its decision. That afternoon the three workers, acting individually, advised the company they were unfit to fly because of fatigue. The management challenged the claim and directed each worker to be medically examined. A doctor employed by the company certified each “fit for duty L.A. to Honolulu sector tonight”. The workers refused to report for duty, were suspended from all duties (on full pay) and some days later were brought to Auckland as passengers. All had been ordered to surrender their ID cards at Los Angeles. They remained suspended on full pay and the company set up an investigation to examine claims of fatigue, the Court said. After the investigation, the company transferred each worker to duties on domestic flights. This deci-

sion was set aside by The Air New Zealand chief executive, Mr Norman Geary, and the workers were transferred to shorthaul international duties, the Court said. In August, 1984, they were returned to normal duties on the longer flights. “The matter had its origin in the changing of the flight pattern introduced by the company which altered the previous schedule of flying times and rest periods at stopovers. “The union had already objected to these and there was a background of industrial tension when this particular flight set out from Auckland to London. This was the first occasion the new schedule had been put into effect.” The company submitted that none of the workers suffered material disadvantage in respect of employment as envisaged by the award; that in any event the actions of the company were fully justified in the circumstances; and that the Court had no jurisdiction to order payment of compensation when a worker had not been dismissed. Counsel for the workers submitted that in addition to the suspensions, they had been punished and harassed. “There is no evidence whatever as to harassment,” the Court said. “Counsel also said the workers had been humiliated. That may well be, but that element is inherent to any suspension from employment and, as we have remarked, the same comment can apply to his contention that they have been punished. “To us it seems that any humiliation, embarrassment or appearance of punishment all stemmed from the suspensions themselves. It has not been argued before us that the suspension of these workers on full pay disadvantaged them in their employment in any material way.”

In his dissenting opinion, Mr Ball said: “From the time each worker reported fatigue and claimed protection under the award it is clear in my mind that instead of complying with the intention and spirit of the award ... the company set about to place punitive ob-

stacles in the way of each worker. “I believe the company fully intended carrying out actions against the workers directed at punishing them and only stopped short of the ultimate punishment. “The workers complied with the provision of their award regarding fatigued workers and were immediately challenged. “They were improperly inconvenienced by the manner and procedure in which the company doctor carried out his examination and reply. They were immediately instructed to return to work which is contrary to the award provision. “They were not given a thorough medical immediately on return home but

were treated like offenders. They were removed from their current jobs and placed on less advantageous employment and more inconvenient roster patterns and they had their ID cards removed which clearly placed them at a disadvantage to other Air New Zealand employees.” Mr Ball said he was in no doubt that the company’s actions were covered by the Industrial Relations Act “and that would be sufficient to provide the court with the jurisdiction required to decide on this issue and award compensation based on varying degrees of disadvantage experienced by each worker pertaining to their individual employment”.