Airline broke undertaking, tribunal told

Press, 5 March 1988, Page 1

Airline broke undertaking, tribunal told

PA ; i Auckland The Human . Rights Commis-j sion last evening accused Air New Zealand of breaking undertakings that hostesses involved in a sex discrimination case would not have to fly. during the hear-! ings. . Air New Zealand, in response, said it had done all it could to allow the hostesses to attend the Equal Opportunities Tribunal sessions.

It would not, however, allow their presence ; to jeopardise the company’s business, said a

spokesman. The matter is believed to have resulted .in one crew member threatening not, to continue an international flight. For almost two hours yesterday counsel argued in chambers, delaying! the tribunal hearing which resumed after a ,twomonth break. ! Seventeen hostesses have claimed that the airline discriminated against them because of their sex. Fourteen work for Air New Zealand, and eight wished to attend the full hearing, i

The airline denied it had discriminated against the hostesses over the allocation jof hotel •rooms during trips, I Mr Graeme MacCormick, the Human Rights Commission’s proceedings commissioner, said there had been rostering difficulties involving some of the complainants while hearings were on in December. ;

“In order to avoid a repetition of those difficulties at the hearing, which was due to begin on March 3, the commission sought and obtained an undertaking

from Air New Zealand that all; of ! the complainants would (be available- for the specified] hearing dates in March,” he said. The airline had pot approached the commission to (be released from its undertaking, but 36 hours beforehand , it advised several of the women it was experiencing rostering difficulties and wanted them on the

roster. The women were notified at a late stage that they bad to fly. After much negotiation the matters were resolved, apart

from the situation of one woman who agreed to fly to Tahiti on the undertaking she would later be flown home. I Mr MacCormick said Air New S ;aland later said it had no-one replace her and the crew was unwilling to work short-handed. I In chambers, it is believed, Air New Zealand objected to a suggestion that the tribunal order the women not to be required to fly during the hearings. It had said it would appeal to tjie High Court against such an order.