Covid Air NZ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
Re Foran, it would seem the sarcasm of that post was lost on you, which would explain why you don't understand. People with Austism Specturm Disorder take things literally btw and you do question the point of a lot of posts and show aggressiveness towards all. Much like some of the other profiles that post on the same threads as you consistantly.
About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread. Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking people and trying to cause thread drift by the aforementioned tactics or goading people. This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.
I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.
Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots to see the toxic culture of the company put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out. You too can become like them.
About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread. Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking people and trying to cause thread drift by the aforementioned tactics or goading people. This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.
I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.
Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots to see the toxic culture of the company put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out. You too can become like them.
Last edited by DeltaT; 27th Sep 2020 at 20:04.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Foran, it would seem the sarcasm of that post was lost on you, which would explain why you don't understand. People with Austism Spectrum Disorder take things literally btw and you do question the point of a lot of posts and show aggressiveness towards all. Much like some of the other profiles that post on the same threads as you consistantly.
About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread (according to you, the moderator). Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads (as defined by your own attribution error) on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking (your interpretation) people (you) and trying to cause thread drift (according to you) by the aforementioned tactics or goading people (you). This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many (you) except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.
I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.
Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots (that's an oxymoron
)to see the toxic culture of the company (which company? You know what they say about assumptions...) put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out (you haven't). You too can become like them.
About me? errr no, this entire thread is about Air NZ & covid. The way forums work on the internet is that people post on topics called threads, the idea being threads stay on topic. If they wish to discuss something else off topic then they start another thread (according to you, the moderator). Some people, due to their own personal issues like to disrupt threads (as defined by your own attribution error) on some topics by using multiple profiles, attacking (your interpretation) people (you) and trying to cause thread drift (according to you) by the aforementioned tactics or goading people (you). This negative behaviour becomes tiresome to many (you) except the protaginist who keeps doing it repeatedly not realising they are showing a pattern for all to see.
I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing. An opportunity lost for the future of all if you teach the latter, and apt considering covid.
Its been a brilliant advertisement for future pilots (that's an oxymoron
)to see the toxic culture of the company (which company? You know what they say about assumptions...) put on display by those that work for the airline in this thread and their posts elsewhere against pilots that speak out (you haven't). You too can become like them.The question put to you was: What is your point Delta? Like, actually. When you make one, how do you support that position?
I might be able to take it personally if it were coherent - It's not, and I didn't.
If the idea of "a thread" is to stay on topic, why don't you?
There's not been an ounce of ad hominem from me...
Austism Spectrum Disorder
Last AirNZ crew positive - April. Before the current measures were in place, and before the airline world truely came to a halt.[/QUOTE]
How do you reconcile this?
[QUOTE]Clearly going to the media did cause the company to make changes and seperate crew from international and domestic duties.[/QUOTE]
And yet....still no crew to crew transmission via this modality. Make no mistake, the government forced that change, and they did so purely to be seen to be doing something - so much for the health outcome being priority #1. Evidential rigour anyone?
[QUOTE]On the 6pm News just now, experts, including epidemiologists are confused by aircrew exemptions.
Well I guess with the MOH knowing better, they are guilty of conspiracy claims according to the people on here.[/QUOTE]
Aren't the two groups one and the same? Funny that same epidemiologist decided no social distancing was required on board a short while later....
Incongruous that there's an epidemiologist in charge, in Sweden, and we choose to poo-poo his advice...
All domestic crew and pax now to wear masks
Pax seated with distancing
Flight Attendant transmission from LA found to be the cause of the Bluff wedding cluster.
My favourite:
IN YOUR FACE
Historically some of the rules for everyone else didn't always apply to Air NZ.
[QUOTE]Elzilcho = RubberDogPoop = InZed[/QUOTE]
You can possibly see why I think your overall "point" is muddled...
(and with all due respect to ElZilcho, who seems to be a rationalist like me, you won't ever catch me writing "could of", or "should of" - it'll be "could HAVE", and "should HAVE" - so rest you worried little conspiratorial mind that he and I are one and the same.) No offence Zilch!
I see Foran went out on the media and expressed his view that a vaccine will only be 50% effective and take years to distribute.
How dare he go out against the status quo and think for himself based on the survey of 10000 Americans.
My god thats a conspiracy in the making right there with him thinking he knows better than anyone else.
Quick he must be subjigated by his pilot workforce, and have a psychological assessment too.
The world is going to end because of this one person, oh no!
How dare he go out against the status quo and think for himself based on the survey of 10000 Americans.
My god thats a conspiracy in the making right there with him thinking he knows better than anyone else.
Quick he must be subjigated by his pilot workforce, and have a psychological assessment too.
The world is going to end because of this one person, oh no!
[QUOTE]Meanwhile, UK airlines Easyjet and Ryanair for the sake of everyone ARE making masks compulsory and no longer providing food service. However Air NZ are now introducing back drinks and snacks while face masks are mandatory...(errr doesn't that mean they all take their masks off when eating and drinking at the same time of food service?!)
Masks then stop being mandatory under level 1 outside to/from Auckland.[/QUOTE]
I imagine the resurgence in Europe and the dearth of cases in NZ have something to do with the disparity...
Why have draconian measures when there is no community transmission? (thats a relative statement - sadly i imagine that needs to be pointed out).
Agree however, that masks should be worn as per my union's long-held belief, and that of IATA - in order to get the industry going again.
Trying for thread drift too now? Why would you post that in a Covid related thread? bahaha nice try.
show aggressiveness towards all
I hope your kids become people that try to bring about change to stop holes happening in the first place, rather than look at them, shrug and say nothing
The "holes" are/were clearly at MIQ - interacting on 12 hour shifts with the very population that is bring the virus to our shores - returning New Zealanders. No testing (at the time), and still no isolation post shift - ergo, they have been the vector, and demonstrably crew have not. The crew "hole" has been seen to be "looked at" for political gain, when shall we look at the real "hole"?
Read through that jumble and tell me that whatever point you're trying to make is clear. Then ask yourself whether you're the subject of self-harm inducing, personal attacks, or whether your argument/position is being challenged.
I think you're saying we all should wear masks on board (I agree), quite how the "evil, deep-state, legislation controlling, AirNZ has any part in this FNose?! Don't go all Andrew Wakefield on us....
ps: I can't be ar$ed fixing the quote thing up
You can possibly see why I think your overall "point" is muddled...
(and with all due respect to ElZilcho, who seems to be a rationalist like me, you won't ever catch me writing "could of", or "should of" - it'll be "could HAVE", and "should HAVE" - so rest you worried little conspiratorial mind that he and I are one and the same.) No offence Zilch!
(and with all due respect to ElZilcho, who seems to be a rationalist like me, you won't ever catch me writing "could of", or "should of" - it'll be "could HAVE", and "should HAVE" - so rest you worried little conspiratorial mind that he and I are one and the same.) No offence Zilch!
ElZilcho are you tall? I’ve always wanted to be taller. So if you are, as we are the same person, I will be taller now also! #excited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
Ahh the infamous pprune trio no less, one after the other..
Anyone would think Dave Morgan had made pprune a project. He hates pprune so much.
Whats even the point of your post RubberDogPoop? I mean seriously
Are you trying to make a conspiracy?
Are you the pprune police? Is it all about you?
Anyone would think Dave Morgan had made pprune a project. He hates pprune so much.
Whats even the point of your post RubberDogPoop? I mean seriously
Are you trying to make a conspiracy?
Are you the pprune police? Is it all about you?
Last edited by DeltaT; 1st Oct 2020 at 10:17.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good win for schedule 100 crew and DOJ !
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND
I TE RATONGA AHUMANA TAIMAHI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
Member of Authority: Representatives:
Investigation Meeting: Submissions received:
Further information received:
Determination:
[2020] NZERA 398 3107553
BETWEEN E TŪ INCORPORATED Applicant
AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent
Marija Urlich
Peter Cranney, counsel for the applicant Kevin Thompson, counsel for the respondent
30 July 2020
30 July 2020 from the applicant 30 July 2020 from the respondent
6 and 11 August 2020
2 October 2020
page1image1699536 page1image3767152 page1image3766944DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY Employment Relationship Problem
[1] This employment relationship problem concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the operation and application of collective employment agreements. The issue at the heart of the dispute concerns whether a category of cabin crew - pre- MUCA Flight Attendants - who transferred from long-haul to mid-haul in an earlier restructuring retain the first right to retain their positions in the event of future restructuring.1
page1image3766320 page1image1779200 page1image37661121 MUCA is an acronym for multi union collective agreement.
[2] Given the ongoing impact on Air New Zealand of the COVID-19 pandemic this issue needs to be resolved prior to any future restructuring of cabin crew services.
The Authority’s investigation
[3] On 18 June 2020 the Authority held a case management conference with the representatives. A date for an investigation meeting was agreed as was a timetable for filing evidence and submissions. The Authority directed the parties circulate among all cabin crew the minute issued subsequent to the case management conference which recorded the issues for investigation and determination and timetabling directions.
[4] At the investigation meeting the Authority heard evidence from Phillip Scott, a senior flight attendant and E tū delegate and Leeanne Langridge, Air New Zealand general manager of cabin crew and received submissions from the representatives. Subsequent to the investigation meeting the parties filed further information.
[5] As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and submissions received. In determining this matter the Authority has carefully considered all the material before it, including all evidence of the parties and the submissions of their representatives.
Issues
[6]
The issues identified for investigation and determination are:
page2image1791072long as those employees remain employed by the respondent under the long-haul collective agreement?
Relevant law
[7] In Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs Judge Corkill set out the legal principals relating to the interpretation of employment agreements:2
[24] In The Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd, the Court of Appeal provided a convenient summary of the correct approach to contractual interpretation, as stated by the Supreme Court in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, and Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd . The Court stated:
“[19] Briefly, these authorities confirm that New Zealand courts
take an objective approach to contractual interpretation which does not limit the background material available to interpret the contract. That material must however be reasonably relevant, and it must be objective; evidence of a party's individual subjective intentions is inadmissible to interpret the contract.
[20] Vector established that there need not be any ambiguity in the meaning of a contract before regard can be had to extrinsic evidence to shed light on its meaning. That conclusion put to bed the need for counsel to prove that contracts had such ambiguities, and instead emphasised the need for courts to take a contextual approach that inquired into the meaning of contracts against the background information known to the parties.
[21] As the Supreme Court later clarified in Firm PI , the text of the contract remains ‘centrally important’. The Court there noted that:
‘If the language at issue, construed in the context of the contract as a whole, has an ordinary and natural meaning, that will be a powerful, albeit not conclusive, indicator of what the parties meant.
[22] The provisional meaning derived from the language of the contract is cross-checked against the contractual context. As Tipping J explained in Vector:
[24] In some recent cases it has been suggested that contractual context should be referred to as a ‘cross-check’. In practical terms that is likely to be what happens in most cases. Anyone reading a contractual document will naturally
form at least a provisional view of what its words mean, simply by reading them. That view is, in a sense, then checked against the contractual context. This description of the process is valid, provided the initial view is provisional only and the reader is prepared to accept that the provisional meaning may be altered once context has been brought to account. The concept of cross-check is helpful in affirming the point made earlier that a meaning which appears plain and unambiguous on its face is always susceptible to being
page3image1802496 page3image37611202 Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs [2020] NZEmpC 139 at [24]
altered by context, albeit that outcome will usually be difficult of achievement ...
[23] It follows that, though there is in principle no limit to the amount of ‘red ink’ a court can use in interpreting a contract (as Lord Hoffman famously said in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd ), there is a practical need for the party seeking to rely on the red pen to point to clear evidence justifying its use. As Tipping J explained in Vector, the exercise ‘is and remains one of interpretation’. There are limits to what the courts can do under the guise of interpretation, and words can only be construed with meanings that they can reasonably bear (subject, as Tipping J recognised, to considerations of rectification, private dictionary use by the parties, and similar). ”
(Footnotes omitted.)
[8] Mr Thompson’s submission that the starting point in interpretation is to reach a provisional meaning of the words used in the relevant employment agreements and then to assess, supplement and/or cross check that provisional view against the context of wider setting and objective intended meaning at the time the agreement was entered is accepted as the correct approach.
Background
Project Wa Mua settlement
[9] In August 2013 Air New Zealand and E tū’s predecessor unions entered the Project Wa Mua Full and Final Settlement Agreement (the Wa Mua settlement).3 The Wa Mua settlement resolved a number of ongoing disputes concerning then existing or recently expired collective agreements and laid the basis for three new collective agreements to cover cabin crew employed in short, mid and long haul flights.
[10] Clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement provides certain priority rights to voluntary redundancy and certain protections from compulsory redundancy under the proposed collective agreements. Clause 6 names the category of worker as “Pre-MUCA Employees” to whom those priority rights accrue and requires their names to be listed in an appendix to the Wa Mua settlement document.
[11] Since the Ma Wua settlement the parties have entered a number of collective employment agreements (CEAs) – two succeeding long-haul CEAs (LHCA) with
3 Flight Attendants and Related Services (NZ) Association Inc (FARSA) and New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc (EPMU).
page4image1804960 page4image1668128terms running 2013 – 2015 and 2019 – 2022 and a mid-haul CEA 2019 – 2022 (MHCA). The CEAs all contain mirror provisions preserving priority rights for Pre- MUCA flight attendants in a redundancy setting as broadly described in the Wa Mua settlement document.
[12] This year, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Air New Zealand has significantly reduced its long haul flights. Redundancies of workers employed in those services followed and, consequent to the priority set of rights for Pre-MUCA flight attendants, workers in that category transferred to mid-haul flight services with concomitant collective agreement coverage moving from the LHCA to MHCA. These transferred workers displaced mid-haul flight attendants resulting in a significant number of redundancies. Mr Cranney has correctly described the displacement of workers caused by the transfer of Pre-MUCA flight attendants as a tragedy albeit one compliant with the parties’ rights and obligations under the relevant collective agreements.
[13] The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Air New Zealand is ongoing and future redundancies of workers may be necessary. The question before the Authority concerns whether the transferred flight attendants retain their priority rights.
The parties’ positions
E tū
[14] E tū’s primary argument is the Wa Mua agreement preserves pre-MUCA employee status for workers who transfer between the MUCAs under the redundancy provisos. The argument is developed as follows:
The redundancy provisos confer two sets of substantive rights on pre-
MUCA flight attendants;
page5image1804512
[15] Air New Zealand’s primary argument is the pre-MUCA status is suspended upon transfer. The argument is developed as follows:
the consensus position expressed in the Project Wa Mua agreement
which created a career pathway for a grand-parented group of employees (pre-MUCA Flight Attendants) who could transfer to the other work group in the event of a redundancy situation;
[16] This is a dispute about the meaning and application of the relevant collective agreements to Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants in a future redundancy setting. A useful starting point is to step through the relevant provisions as if the parties were undertaking a redundancy process under the MHCA, the collective agreement to which Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants were most recently transferred:
Step 1 - the first question is whether the situation meets the definition of redundancy the parties have agreed as set out in clause 20.1.2:
page6image183318420.2 Definition
page6image367168020.2.1 Redundancy is a condition in which an employer has Flight Attendant(s) surplus to requirements because of the closing down of the whole or any part of the Employer’s operations due to a change
in plant, methods, material or products, or reorganisation or like cause requiring a permanent reduction in the number of permanent Flight Attendants who have not achieved the Airline’s retirement policy.
...
Step 2 – If the conditions defining redundancy in clause 20.2.1 are met, then the process the parties have agreed for redundancy selection must be applied as required by clause 20.3.3:
20.3 Selection Criteria of Redundant Employees
...
20.3.3 The parties have agreed to a Redundancy Selection proviso set out in Appendix V of this Agreement.
Step 3 – The redundancy proviso in Appendix V applies if a redundancy event as defined in clause 20.2 exists (Appendix V clause 1.1). Appendix V terms resolve any inconsistency with any term in the MHCA (Appendix V clause 1.1).
Step 4 – If the conditions of a redundancy event are met then voluntary redundancies must first be called for (Appendix V clause 2). Pre-MUCA flight attendants are the first group to be given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancy. Clause 2.1.1 purports to incorporate a definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants:
that Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants (as defined in Schedule 100 of the Long Haul Collective Agreement) employed in that rank on either this Agreement or the Long Haul Collective Agreement are given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancies arising in either or both Collective Agreements; ...
Step 5 – Consideration is then to be given to which flight attendants are Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants.
Step 6 – Following the call for volunteers, if compulsory redundancies are
required then the second set of priority rights for Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants is invoked.
Step 7 – The process then needs to be tested against the “avoidance of doubt” provisions set out at clause 4 which include:
4.1.4 In the event that any Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs transfer into the Mid Haul Fleet and become covered by this Agreement:
page7image18051844.1.5 The transferring Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs shall be entitled to retain his/her existing salary, overtime, allowances, sick leave any retirement leave entitlements as provided for under the Long Haul Collective Agreement; and
4.1.6 In building rosters under this Agreement the Company will not take into account whether an employee is a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant or not.
[17] The provisions themselves are straightforward. The difficulty arises as to the definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant.
[18] Clause 2.1.1 refers to a “definition” of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in
Schedule 100. In strict terms there is no definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in Schedule 100. What is contained is an application clause (clause 1) which describes Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants followed by a definition clause (clause 2):
SCHEDULE 100 – TERMS APPLICABLE TO PRE-MUCA FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
1. APPLICATION OF THIS SCHEDULE
1.1 The terms and conditions set out in this Schedule shall apply only to Flight Attendants who are listed in the letter from the Company to the Flight Attendants and Related Services Association and the New Zealand Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc called Pre- MUCA Employee List” (MUCA stands for Multi Union Collective Agreement) for so long as those employees remain employed by the Company under this Agreement (“Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”).
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 A Flight Attendant is a part time or full time crew member...
[19] The Authority is satisfied clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 is a definition of Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants because this is what the parties have agreed it to be – clause 2.1.1. of Appendix V has been drafted, bargained and ratified in contemplation of the
nomenclature and wording of Schedule 100, clause 1.1.
[20] How then does clause 1.1 define “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”? The starting point is the wording of the clause itself.
[21] The ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the clause is that Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants are those flight attendants listed on the “Pre-MUCA
page8image1804064Employee List” attached to the Wa Mua settlement document as long as they remain employed by Air New Zealand under the MHCA that is, “this Agreement”.
[22] It does not follow that transfer to the MHCA from the LHCA under the redundancy proviso discharges or suspends “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” status. The transferred workers maintain their priority status under the mirror clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 because at transfer they attain coverage under that Agreement and from then satisfy the requirement to “remain employed by the Company under this Agreement” the transfer having moved them seamlessly to the MHCA from the LHCA.4
[23] The interpretation that the priority obligation is not discharged or suspended on transfer from LHCA to MHCA (or the reverse) is supported as follows:
mid haul flight attendants have not agreed to permanently inferior redundancy rights to transferees. This argument does not succeed because it is not apparent on the face of the MHCA that a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant would not have that status on transfer because they are someone who “remains employed by the Company under this Agreement”. When cross checked against the framework of collective
page9image1776288 page9image16968324 LHCA 2019 – 2022 schedule 100, clause 1.1.
5 If employment is not continuous a worker’s name is removed from the Pre-MUCA employee list appendix D by operation of clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement document.
agreements and the Wa Mua settlement agreement the Authority is satisfied the parties’ intention was not to suspend or discharge pre-MUCA flight attendant status on transfer.
Outcome
[25] The question is answered in favour of E tū. The declaration is granted as sought.
Costs
[26] Given the nature of this dispute the Authority is minded to allow costs to lie where they fall. Notwithstanding, if E tū seeks an award of costs, memorandum to be filed and served within fourteen days of the date of determination and Air New Zealand to file and serve any reply memorandum within seven days of receipt.
Marija Urlich
Member of the Employment Relations Authority
page10image1800032 page10image1797120
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND
I TE RATONGA AHUMANA TAIMAHI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
Member of Authority: Representatives:
Investigation Meeting: Submissions received:
Further information received:
Determination:
[2020] NZERA 398 3107553
BETWEEN E TŪ INCORPORATED Applicant
AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent
Marija Urlich
Peter Cranney, counsel for the applicant Kevin Thompson, counsel for the respondent
30 July 2020
30 July 2020 from the applicant 30 July 2020 from the respondent
6 and 11 August 2020
2 October 2020
page1image1699536 page1image3767152 page1image3766944DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY Employment Relationship Problem
[1] This employment relationship problem concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the operation and application of collective employment agreements. The issue at the heart of the dispute concerns whether a category of cabin crew - pre- MUCA Flight Attendants - who transferred from long-haul to mid-haul in an earlier restructuring retain the first right to retain their positions in the event of future restructuring.1
page1image3766320 page1image1779200 page1image37661121 MUCA is an acronym for multi union collective agreement.
[2] Given the ongoing impact on Air New Zealand of the COVID-19 pandemic this issue needs to be resolved prior to any future restructuring of cabin crew services.
The Authority’s investigation
[3] On 18 June 2020 the Authority held a case management conference with the representatives. A date for an investigation meeting was agreed as was a timetable for filing evidence and submissions. The Authority directed the parties circulate among all cabin crew the minute issued subsequent to the case management conference which recorded the issues for investigation and determination and timetabling directions.
[4] At the investigation meeting the Authority heard evidence from Phillip Scott, a senior flight attendant and E tū delegate and Leeanne Langridge, Air New Zealand general manager of cabin crew and received submissions from the representatives. Subsequent to the investigation meeting the parties filed further information.
[5] As permitted by s 174E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) this determination has stated findings of fact and law, expressed conclusions on issues necessary to dispose of the matter and specified orders made. It has not recorded all evidence and submissions received. In determining this matter the Authority has carefully considered all the material before it, including all evidence of the parties and the submissions of their representatives.
Issues
[6]
The issues identified for investigation and determination are:
- Whether, as is E tū’s position, pre-MUCA flight attendants are those listed in the letter referred to at clause 1.1 of schedule 100 of the long-haul collective agreement and whether such persons retain that status on transfer to the mid-haul collective agreement?
- Or, whether, as is Air New Zealand’s position, pre-MUCA flight attendants are those listed in the letter referred to at clause 1.1 of schedule 100 of the long-haul collective agreement but only for so
page2image1791072long as those employees remain employed by the respondent under the long-haul collective agreement?
Relevant law
[7] In Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs Judge Corkill set out the legal principals relating to the interpretation of employment agreements:2
[24] In The Malthouse Ltd v Rangatira Ltd, the Court of Appeal provided a convenient summary of the correct approach to contractual interpretation, as stated by the Supreme Court in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, and Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd . The Court stated:
“[19] Briefly, these authorities confirm that New Zealand courts
take an objective approach to contractual interpretation which does not limit the background material available to interpret the contract. That material must however be reasonably relevant, and it must be objective; evidence of a party's individual subjective intentions is inadmissible to interpret the contract.
[20] Vector established that there need not be any ambiguity in the meaning of a contract before regard can be had to extrinsic evidence to shed light on its meaning. That conclusion put to bed the need for counsel to prove that contracts had such ambiguities, and instead emphasised the need for courts to take a contextual approach that inquired into the meaning of contracts against the background information known to the parties.
[21] As the Supreme Court later clarified in Firm PI , the text of the contract remains ‘centrally important’. The Court there noted that:
‘If the language at issue, construed in the context of the contract as a whole, has an ordinary and natural meaning, that will be a powerful, albeit not conclusive, indicator of what the parties meant.
[22] The provisional meaning derived from the language of the contract is cross-checked against the contractual context. As Tipping J explained in Vector:
[24] In some recent cases it has been suggested that contractual context should be referred to as a ‘cross-check’. In practical terms that is likely to be what happens in most cases. Anyone reading a contractual document will naturally
form at least a provisional view of what its words mean, simply by reading them. That view is, in a sense, then checked against the contractual context. This description of the process is valid, provided the initial view is provisional only and the reader is prepared to accept that the provisional meaning may be altered once context has been brought to account. The concept of cross-check is helpful in affirming the point made earlier that a meaning which appears plain and unambiguous on its face is always susceptible to being
page3image1802496 page3image37611202 Kiwirail Limited v Mobbs [2020] NZEmpC 139 at [24]
altered by context, albeit that outcome will usually be difficult of achievement ...
[23] It follows that, though there is in principle no limit to the amount of ‘red ink’ a court can use in interpreting a contract (as Lord Hoffman famously said in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd ), there is a practical need for the party seeking to rely on the red pen to point to clear evidence justifying its use. As Tipping J explained in Vector, the exercise ‘is and remains one of interpretation’. There are limits to what the courts can do under the guise of interpretation, and words can only be construed with meanings that they can reasonably bear (subject, as Tipping J recognised, to considerations of rectification, private dictionary use by the parties, and similar). ”
(Footnotes omitted.)
[8] Mr Thompson’s submission that the starting point in interpretation is to reach a provisional meaning of the words used in the relevant employment agreements and then to assess, supplement and/or cross check that provisional view against the context of wider setting and objective intended meaning at the time the agreement was entered is accepted as the correct approach.
Background
Project Wa Mua settlement
[9] In August 2013 Air New Zealand and E tū’s predecessor unions entered the Project Wa Mua Full and Final Settlement Agreement (the Wa Mua settlement).3 The Wa Mua settlement resolved a number of ongoing disputes concerning then existing or recently expired collective agreements and laid the basis for three new collective agreements to cover cabin crew employed in short, mid and long haul flights.
[10] Clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement provides certain priority rights to voluntary redundancy and certain protections from compulsory redundancy under the proposed collective agreements. Clause 6 names the category of worker as “Pre-MUCA Employees” to whom those priority rights accrue and requires their names to be listed in an appendix to the Wa Mua settlement document.
[11] Since the Ma Wua settlement the parties have entered a number of collective employment agreements (CEAs) – two succeeding long-haul CEAs (LHCA) with
3 Flight Attendants and Related Services (NZ) Association Inc (FARSA) and New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc (EPMU).
page4image1804960 page4image1668128terms running 2013 – 2015 and 2019 – 2022 and a mid-haul CEA 2019 – 2022 (MHCA). The CEAs all contain mirror provisions preserving priority rights for Pre- MUCA flight attendants in a redundancy setting as broadly described in the Wa Mua settlement document.
[12] This year, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Air New Zealand has significantly reduced its long haul flights. Redundancies of workers employed in those services followed and, consequent to the priority set of rights for Pre-MUCA flight attendants, workers in that category transferred to mid-haul flight services with concomitant collective agreement coverage moving from the LHCA to MHCA. These transferred workers displaced mid-haul flight attendants resulting in a significant number of redundancies. Mr Cranney has correctly described the displacement of workers caused by the transfer of Pre-MUCA flight attendants as a tragedy albeit one compliant with the parties’ rights and obligations under the relevant collective agreements.
[13] The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Air New Zealand is ongoing and future redundancies of workers may be necessary. The question before the Authority concerns whether the transferred flight attendants retain their priority rights.
The parties’ positions
E tū
[14] E tū’s primary argument is the Wa Mua agreement preserves pre-MUCA employee status for workers who transfer between the MUCAs under the redundancy provisos. The argument is developed as follows:
The redundancy provisos confer two sets of substantive rights on pre-
MUCA flight attendants;
- The first set of rights gives pre-MUCA flight attendants priority when
volunteers for redundancy are called for; - The second set of rights excludes pre-MUCA flight attendants from
compulsory redundancy because they are excluded from application of the selection criteria in the relevant agreement or further application and transfer as “survivors”;
page5image1804512
- Clause 20.2.1 defines a redundancy condition as “a condition in which an employer has Flight Attendants surplus to requirements”;
- A pre-MUCA flight attendant can never meet the redundancy condition because a pre-MUCA flight attendant can never become surplus to requirements.
[15] Air New Zealand’s primary argument is the pre-MUCA status is suspended upon transfer. The argument is developed as follows:
the consensus position expressed in the Project Wa Mua agreement
which created a career pathway for a grand-parented group of employees (pre-MUCA Flight Attendants) who could transfer to the other work group in the event of a redundancy situation;
- E tū’s argument can only succeed if the Authority is prepared to apply “red ink” to clause 2.1.1 of the redundancy proviso and delete the requirement that the effected worker “remain[s] employed by the Company under this Agreement” which introduces a temporal limitation;
- The interpretation advanced by E tū is not only contrary to accepted principles of contractual interpretation but would produce an absurd outcome because, amongst other things, such adverse consequences to other employees cannot have been intended.
[16] This is a dispute about the meaning and application of the relevant collective agreements to Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants in a future redundancy setting. A useful starting point is to step through the relevant provisions as if the parties were undertaking a redundancy process under the MHCA, the collective agreement to which Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants were most recently transferred:
Step 1 - the first question is whether the situation meets the definition of redundancy the parties have agreed as set out in clause 20.1.2:
page6image183318420.2 Definition
page6image367168020.2.1 Redundancy is a condition in which an employer has Flight Attendant(s) surplus to requirements because of the closing down of the whole or any part of the Employer’s operations due to a change
in plant, methods, material or products, or reorganisation or like cause requiring a permanent reduction in the number of permanent Flight Attendants who have not achieved the Airline’s retirement policy.
...
Step 2 – If the conditions defining redundancy in clause 20.2.1 are met, then the process the parties have agreed for redundancy selection must be applied as required by clause 20.3.3:
20.3 Selection Criteria of Redundant Employees
...
20.3.3 The parties have agreed to a Redundancy Selection proviso set out in Appendix V of this Agreement.
Step 3 – The redundancy proviso in Appendix V applies if a redundancy event as defined in clause 20.2 exists (Appendix V clause 1.1). Appendix V terms resolve any inconsistency with any term in the MHCA (Appendix V clause 1.1).
Step 4 – If the conditions of a redundancy event are met then voluntary redundancies must first be called for (Appendix V clause 2). Pre-MUCA flight attendants are the first group to be given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancy. Clause 2.1.1 purports to incorporate a definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants:
that Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants (as defined in Schedule 100 of the Long Haul Collective Agreement) employed in that rank on either this Agreement or the Long Haul Collective Agreement are given the opportunity to volunteer for redundancies arising in either or both Collective Agreements; ...
Step 5 – Consideration is then to be given to which flight attendants are Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants.
Step 6 – Following the call for volunteers, if compulsory redundancies are
required then the second set of priority rights for Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants is invoked.
Step 7 – The process then needs to be tested against the “avoidance of doubt” provisions set out at clause 4 which include:
4.1.4 In the event that any Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs transfer into the Mid Haul Fleet and become covered by this Agreement:
page7image18051844.1.5 The transferring Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants or FSMs shall be entitled to retain his/her existing salary, overtime, allowances, sick leave any retirement leave entitlements as provided for under the Long Haul Collective Agreement; and
4.1.6 In building rosters under this Agreement the Company will not take into account whether an employee is a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant or not.
[17] The provisions themselves are straightforward. The difficulty arises as to the definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant.
[18] Clause 2.1.1 refers to a “definition” of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in
Schedule 100. In strict terms there is no definition of Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant in Schedule 100. What is contained is an application clause (clause 1) which describes Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants followed by a definition clause (clause 2):
SCHEDULE 100 – TERMS APPLICABLE TO PRE-MUCA FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
1. APPLICATION OF THIS SCHEDULE
1.1 The terms and conditions set out in this Schedule shall apply only to Flight Attendants who are listed in the letter from the Company to the Flight Attendants and Related Services Association and the New Zealand Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc called Pre- MUCA Employee List” (MUCA stands for Multi Union Collective Agreement) for so long as those employees remain employed by the Company under this Agreement (“Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”).
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 A Flight Attendant is a part time or full time crew member...
[19] The Authority is satisfied clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 is a definition of Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants because this is what the parties have agreed it to be – clause 2.1.1. of Appendix V has been drafted, bargained and ratified in contemplation of the
nomenclature and wording of Schedule 100, clause 1.1.
[20] How then does clause 1.1 define “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendants”? The starting point is the wording of the clause itself.
[21] The ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the clause is that Pre- MUCA Flight Attendants are those flight attendants listed on the “Pre-MUCA
page8image1804064Employee List” attached to the Wa Mua settlement document as long as they remain employed by Air New Zealand under the MHCA that is, “this Agreement”.
[22] It does not follow that transfer to the MHCA from the LHCA under the redundancy proviso discharges or suspends “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” status. The transferred workers maintain their priority status under the mirror clause 1.1 of Schedule 100 because at transfer they attain coverage under that Agreement and from then satisfy the requirement to “remain employed by the Company under this Agreement” the transfer having moved them seamlessly to the MHCA from the LHCA.4
[23] The interpretation that the priority obligation is not discharged or suspended on transfer from LHCA to MHCA (or the reverse) is supported as follows:
- The definitional requirements of “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” in schedule 100, cl 1.1 (mirror provisions in MHCA or LHCA) are met if a worker is (i) named on the “Pre-MUCA Employee List”, (ii) employed by Air New Zealand and (iii) remain employed under the qualifying “this Agreement”;
- Employment is continuous on transfer from LHCA to MHCA. A Pre- MUCA Flight Attendant is never not able to hold that status because they always remain employed under a qualifying Agreement5;
- There is no explicit mechanism in the LHCA or MHCA to remove “Pre- MUCA Flight Attendant” status; and
- The retention of “Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant” status on transfer is consistent with the post transfer rights at clause 4.1.5 and 4.1.6.
mid haul flight attendants have not agreed to permanently inferior redundancy rights to transferees. This argument does not succeed because it is not apparent on the face of the MHCA that a Pre-MUCA Flight Attendant would not have that status on transfer because they are someone who “remains employed by the Company under this Agreement”. When cross checked against the framework of collective
page9image1776288 page9image16968324 LHCA 2019 – 2022 schedule 100, clause 1.1.
5 If employment is not continuous a worker’s name is removed from the Pre-MUCA employee list appendix D by operation of clause 6 of the Wa Mua settlement document.
agreements and the Wa Mua settlement agreement the Authority is satisfied the parties’ intention was not to suspend or discharge pre-MUCA flight attendant status on transfer.
Outcome
[25] The question is answered in favour of E tū. The declaration is granted as sought.
Costs
[26] Given the nature of this dispute the Authority is minded to allow costs to lie where they fall. Notwithstanding, if E tū seeks an award of costs, memorandum to be filed and served within fourteen days of the date of determination and Air New Zealand to file and serve any reply memorandum within seven days of receipt.
Marija Urlich
Member of the Employment Relations Authority
page10image1800032 page10image1797120
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/cov...LCITIMKOYXLRU/
the wheels are really falling off the “we did the right thing” bus
the wheels are really falling off the “we did the right thing” bus
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/cov...LCITIMKOYXLRU/
the wheels are really falling off the “we did the right thing” bus
the wheels are really falling off the “we did the right thing” bus
They have changed their stance more often than a stripper changes her G-string
NZ has zero community cases, can Australia as a country say the same thing?
Are you really trying to compare a country of 5 million people and 100k square miles area to a country of 25 million people and a 3 million square mile area? Australia also has 6 states and two territories which implement their own strategy. Maybe come back with a proper comparison and we will talk.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the Herald had CORRECTED their story from "The WHO not recommending lockdown" to "A WHO doctor", yes, one persons opinion.The jury will be out until 20 years time, because only then will we be able to evaluate the extent lockdown has created 'poverty' versus not. In the NZ context, international tourism has been obliterated and isn't coming back soon, and whilst domestic tourism is making up for some of that, it won't last forever. The biggest economic difference is in NZ daily life is continuing pretty much as normal, unlike say the UK, US, etc, where they didn't do real lockdown, and arguably their consequences will be far worse. The long-term effects of COVID on humans are yet to be realised, and I suspect that consequence will be very costly.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the Herald had CORRECTED their story from "The WHO not recommending lockdown" to "A WHO doctor", yes, one persons opinion
Sorry, I guess the vested interests put pressure on the herald to tone the article down because it was being unhelpfully honest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
Further to the end was the counter balance in the article:
Interesting article on masks here.
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?
But Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton, said the declaration was "based upon a false premise".
"That governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available," Head said.
"That governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available," Head said.
Interesting article on masks here.
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to the end was the counter balance in the article:
Interesting article on masks here.
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?
Interesting article on masks here.
Surgical staff wear them in theatre, I wonder who would tell them not to bother?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you follow the epidemiological curve of the virus in almost every country that there was both an outbreak and a lockdown, you can see that the lockdown was implemented after the peak, so thus too late to prevent the spread. NZs entry into level 4 was particularly so.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Auckland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great win for legacy crew and yet the forun cleansing contract regime are now making over half of the most junior legacy crew ( only 204 crew left with over 25 years service will remain) take redundancy payment or take nothing and get recalled, effectively buying your job back but on sub par contract. Crew have offered LWOP plus a plethora of alternatives only to be told no . Buy your way back. This is the new way of Carrie and forum regime . Watch out we pilots are next. It's despicable .