It was interesting to note that a recent decision by the Employment Relations Authority has determined that it was not possible to give a meaningful interpretation of the term "first class'' when describing hotel accommodation.
An Air New Zealand pilot has claimed that his employer that the Manhattan Beach Marriott in Los Angeles used for crew stopovers did not meet the definition of a "first class'' hotel, as set out in the collective agreement with the Airline Pilots' Association.
In dismissing the case, The Employment Relations Authority found that even with the most objective analysis, it was not possible to give a meaningful interpretation of the term "first class" when referring to hotel accommodation and added that the term "may be somewhat outdated and may apply to another era of travel.''
The authority found that the Air New Zealand and the Airline Pilots' Association had correctly followed a process of inspection and recommendation to decide whether staff accommodation was acceptable.
The aggrieved pilot, Michael Alexander Talbot has previous form of taking Air New Zealand to task over the quality of accommodation and in this recent spat was ordered to pay his employer $1500 for the cost of the half-day employment hearing.
