Summary
The Court of Appeal addressed whether split shifts constitute a single "work period" under the Employment Relations Act 2000 when determining bus drivers' rest and meal break entitlements, finding that it depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the employment arrangement.
Background
Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd ("Tranzurban") operates bus services in the Hutt Valley under contract with the Greater Wellington Regional Council, utilizing "split shifts" where drivers work morning and afternoon periods separated by a midday break. The New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Wellington Branch Inc ("Union") challenged Tranzurban's practice of treating split shifts with breaks of two hours or more as two separate work periods for the purposes of s 69ZC of the Act, arguing that this reduced drivers' entitlement to rest and meal breaks. The Union contended that the entire split shift should be considered one continuous work period, resulting in more breaks for drivers. In practice, the difference between the two approaches was that the Union's approach would have resulted in three paid rest breaks and two unpaid meal breaks, while Tranzurban's resulted in two paid rest breaks and one unpaid meal break.
The Employment Relations Authority initially sided with the Union, finding that a split shift constituted a single work period from the beginning to the end of the driver's workday.
However, the Employment Court overturned this decision, holding that the Act did not prevent parties from agreeing to multiple work periods within a workday. The Employment Court determined that the classification of a split shift as one or more work periods was a factual question depending on the hours worked, the nature of breaks, and the agreed terms of employment.
The Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Court's interpretation of s 69ZC, finding that it was correct in its approach. It emphasized that the terms and conditions of employment, as reflected in the Collective Agreement, were a key factor. The Court found that the Collective Agreement was permissive, not prescriptive, and did not mandate that all split shifts be treated as single work periods.
The Court then assessed whether Tranzurban's approach was consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to ensure employees have adequate time to rest and refresh. The Court considered that drivers were free to use the two-hour break as they wished, and there was no evidence Tranzurban was structuring shifts to avoid providing breaks. The Court acknowledged that a rested, refreshed, and nourished driver promotes a productive employment relationship. The fact that Tranzurban designed the shifts around bus routes and demand was also relevant.
Result
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, finding that Tranzurban's approach to split shifts was consistent with the Collective Agreement and the overall purpose of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
This case provides guidance on determining rest break entitlements in the context of split shifts. It highlights the importance of examining the specific terms and conditions of employment and the practical realities of the work arrangement on a case-by-case basis.
For further information on this case or similar issues, please contact Director Brigitte Morten.
