Air New Zealand Crew’s Covid-19 Vaccine Dismissal Case Verdict
AUCKLAND– Air New Zealand (NZ) has faced a significant legal challenge regarding the dismissal of international flight attendants who refused to get the Covid-19 vaccine. The airline terminated six crew members in 2021 after they did not comply with the vaccination requirements that were mandated that year.
The Employment Relations Authority ruled that the actions taken by Air New Zealand were consistent with the standards expected of a reasonable employer. Regulations enacted that year required all pilots and international cabin crew to receive their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine by September 30, 2021, and the second dose within 35 days.
Air New Zealand communicated these requirements effectively and considered alternatives for those affected, but the crew members declined the options offered, which ultimately led to their dismissal.
Air New Zealand Attendants Lose Case
The dispute revolved around Air New Zealand’s adherence to the July 12, 2021 amendments to New Zealand’s Covid-19 Public Health Response Order. This order specified vaccination for international cabin crew and pilots.
Initially, the crew members were invited to review their employment status, but discussions were delayed. Eventually, on October 4, 2021, meetings took place, offering options like unpaid leave or potential redeployment.
The flight attendants contended that they deserved to be classified as redundant under the collective agreement. However, Air New Zealand maintained that redeployment was not an option and that offering leave without pay was a fair alternative.
The Employment Relations Authority determined that the airline acted fairly and reasonably, considering the vaccine mandate’s legal implications, as indicated by reports from the NZ Herald.
Legal Arguments and Authority Findings
The applicants raised personal grievances against Air New Zealand, questioning the validity of the Pfizer vaccine and challenging the airline’s authority to mandate vaccinations.
They contended that the airline acted unfairly by not providing reasonable redeployment options, including allowance for work on quarantine-free travel flights (Auckland AKL – Sydney SYD QFT).
Authority member Alex Leulu emphasized that the airline had presented reasonable alternatives such as unpaid leave and redeployment opportunities.
The crew members ultimately rejected these alternatives for various reasons, including concerns about future employment and complications related to withdrawing from their superannuation funds.
Ultimately, the Employment Relations Authority concluded that the dismissals complied with the Covid-19 Public Health Response Order. The Authority found no valid claims for unjustified dismissal or exemplary damages.
Similar Incidents
This ruling aligns with other legal outcomes in the aviation industry. Recently, a pilot from Jetconnect, a contractor to Qantas (QF), successfully contested his dismissal concerning Covid-19 vaccination requirements. This highlighted variances in employer communication and the options provided to employees.
In contrast to the Air New Zealand situation, the airline’s responses and offerings were deemed reasonable, setting it apart from cases that led to successful grievances due to procedural shortcomings.
This situation underscores the complex challenges airlines encounter while balancing public health mandates against workforce management. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for crew members to actively engage with available alternatives, such as unpaid leave or redeployment, when statutory obligations conflict with personal choices.
Bottom Line
Air New Zealand (NZ) successfully upheld its decision to dismiss international flight attendants who opted not to receive the Covid-19 vaccination. The Employment Relations Authority found that the airline acted justly and provided viable alternatives which were ultimately rejected by the applicants.
This outcome emphasizes the responsibilities of international crew members under public health mandates and establishes a precedent regarding how airlines can legally enforce such requirements.
How do you think airlines should approach vaccination policies in the future?
