ERA awards $10k after employer separates couple's shifts
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a critical care paramedic who claimed he was disadvantaged by his employer's decision to change his roster to prevent him working with his romantic partner.
The worker had been employed by a rescue helicopter service providing emergency medical transport in Auckland and Northland.
The worker argued that he had been unfairly treated when his employer decided he should not work alongside his partner on the same aircraft. He claimed this constituted discrimination based on his family status and that the employer failed to properly consult with him before making significant changes to his working arrangements.
The dispute highlighted the tension between workplace safety concerns and personal relationships, raising questions about how employers should balance operational requirements with employees' personal lives.
The worker was employed as a critical care paramedic and paramedic air crew officer with winch operating duties at a rescue helicopter service. He began seeing a fellow paramedic, referred to as Ms T, in April 2023.
At that time, they worked on the same watch or shift line, meaning all their shifts were the same, with four days on duty followed by four days off.
When the relationship began, the worker had an informal discussion with a manager in the carpark. He was told that "the organisation does not have a policy in place about that and personal life is personal if they keep things professional." This led the worker to believe there would be no workplace issues as long as they maintained professionalism.
The employer decided to take a "wait and see" approach to determine how the relationship progressed. However, throughout this period, unbeknownst to the worker, some staff expressed concerns to management about the relationship's impact on work.
In July 2023, an anonymous staff survey included comments that people in romantic relationships should not work together. Management received this feedback but did not inform the worker about any negative comments regarding his relationship.
By September 2023, the employer's management team convened a meeting to discuss the situation and decided to undertake a risk assessment on co-workers in romantic relationships.
They contacted various New Zealand and Australian emergency service providers to inquire about their policies on personnel working together when in romantic relationships.
Most organisations reported operating informal approaches that discouraged staff in relationships from working closely together.
Based on this information and internal discussions, the employer concluded there were safety concerns about the impact of team dynamics when co-workers in a romantic relationship worked together on the same aircraft.
The worker first learned about these concerns during his annual performance appraisal in late September 2023, when a manager informed him there was a proposal to move him to a different shift from his partner. The employer intended to swap the worker with another Paramedic Air Crew Officer, resulting in a change to his roster line by two days.
When the worker objected to this change, the employer initiated a formal consultation process. The letter cited "overwhelming" negative feedback from the staff survey and concerns that the relationship could affect his clinical judgment and decision-making.
"[C]oncerns that the relationship could introduce emotional elements affecting his clinical judgement and decision-making," the employer stated as one reason for the proposed change, along with concerns about "favouritism, conflicts of interest and compromised professionalism."
The worker, through his union, responded with concerns about the consultation process and the lack of information provided. He proposed staying on the same roster line but working in a different aircraft to his partner rather than changing his entire schedule.
In October 2023, a meeting was held where the worker's representative expressed concerns about "the vague reasonings given for the change, a lack of articulation of other staff's concerns and the absence of a risk assessment."
The employer eventually prepared a risk assessment matrix as requested by the worker, but only after key decisions had already been made.
By November 2023, the employer confirmed its decision to proceed with the roster change, stating: "The control identified for co-workers in a romantic relationship is to split up the individuals from working together directly." The worker began his new roster on 1 December 2023, which meant he started work two days before his partner.
The ERA determined that the employer did not adequately consult with the worker before deciding he and his partner should not work together. "In these specific circumstances it was not fair for the organisation to reach a conclusion that [the worker] and [Ms T] should not fly together before consulting with him in a proper manner," the Authority stated.
The ERA found that the employer "failed to satisfactorily provide information to [the worker] about how it had got to that point," noting a lack of documentation about information obtained from other organisations and insufficient details about staff concerns.
"More information should also have been provided about rostering options to deal with the health and safety risk," the Authority observed, finding that the employer had "adopted a process with unjustifiable elements and breached its duty of good faith."
However, the ERA declined to order the worker's reinstatement to his previous roster, accepting the employer's arguments about operational requirements. "I am not satisfied that reinstatement is reasonable as well as practicable in these circumstances," the Authority concluded.
The ERA ordered the employer to pay the worker $10,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, acknowledging that "he was not treated in a dignified manner when he was inadequately consulted and this injured his feelings and has left him with ongoing trust concerns."
