They were placed on an after-hours roster, contacted when issues arose, and expected to respond
The Employment Court has ruled that three regional technical managers (RTMs) employed by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) were unlawfully required to be available for work outside their guaranteed hours without receiving reasonable compensation.
The court found that their individual employment agreements (IEAs) contained availability provisions that did not comply with s. 67D of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which requires reasonable compensation for such work. The ruling affirmed the Employment Relations Authority’s earlier decision and highlighted failures in NZDF’s employment agreements and compensation structure.
The case arose after the RTMs argued that their employment contracts obligated them to be available for work beyond their guaranteed 40-hour workweeks without compensation. The IEAs specified that employees must work additional hours “as reasonably necessary” to meet operational needs. NZDF denied that the contracts constituted availability provisions and maintained that the RTMs could decline extra work.
The Employment Relations Authority ruled in favour of the RTMs, finding that their contracts effectively required them to be on-call and that they lacked a genuine ability to refuse additional work. NZDF challenged this determination, seeking a declaration that the managers were not obligated to be available beyond their core hours and that their contracts did not contain availability provisions.
The Employment Court upheld the authority’s decision, concluding that the RTMs were, in fact, required to be available for work outside their regular hours. The court noted that the managers were placed on an after-hours roster, contacted when issues arose, and expected to respond. It rejected NZDF’s claim that this work was voluntary, finding that the contracts explicitly required availability when operationally necessary.
Under s. 67D of the act, availability provisions must include reasonable compensation. The court found that NZDF failed to meet this requirement, as the RTMs’ remuneration agreements did not explicitly provide compensation for their availability.
Evidence showed that other employees who performed similar on-call duties received an allowance, yet the RTMs were excluded. The court also noted that NZDF had previously offered compensation to the RTMs for past availability work, indicating its recognition that their time had value beyond their standard salaries. The court directed the parties to negotiate an appropriate compensation amount. If they cannot reach an agreement, they may return to the court for further determination.
