Woman’s claim against Air NZ dismissed

A was woman so determined to prove she worked for Air New Zealand she wore the carrier’s uniform and a name tag at an employment hearing, but her claim was ultimately dismissed.

Georgina Rachelle took Air New Zealand to the Employment Court on a raft of claims, including unlawful dismissal, workplace discrimination and breaches of workplace policies. She had her final challenge dismissed in a hearing before Judge Kerry Smith in Queenstown earlier this month.

Rachelle had worked as a casual employee for Mount Cook Airline before ground operations in Queenstown were transitioned to Air New Zealand.

The litigation stemmed from the decision to not offer Rachelle permanent employment, her tendency to view Air New Zealand and Mount Cook Airline as the same company, and an ‘‘ambiguous claim by her [then] lawyers that she was permanently employed by Air New Zealand’’, the court document says.

She also claimed the company discriminated against her because of her marital status, because it did not appoint her to a permanent position when she was in the process of getting divorced.

Judge Smith’s decision says the ‘‘first, and obvious, problem’’ with Rachelle’s case was it could only be directed to Mount Cook Airline, where she actually performed work from time to time.

‘‘Air New Zealand could not have unilaterally and unlawfully altered Ms Rachelle’s hours given that she was never contracted to it for any specified hours,’’ Judge Smith said.

On March 31, 2016, Air New Zealand wrote to Rachelle and said it had a need for some casual staff, but it did not guarantee an offer of work or any expectation of employment.

The letter told Rochelle that permanent Mount Cook Airline employees, which she was not, would transfer to Air New Zealand on April 4, 2016.

‘‘Air New Zealand’s offer to Rachelle was qualified in the same way as the casual employment she had with Mount Cook Airline: In fact, Air New Zealand never offered Rachelle any actual work as a casual employee,’’ a court document says.

The court decision went on to say Air New Zealand did not share her opinion that she was the best available candidate when she applied for a fulltime role, ‘‘whatever may be the quality of Ms Rachelle’s work, Air New Zealand did not breach any of its workplace policies or procedures in relation to her.’’

Judge Smith’s decision says, ‘‘I am satisfied that Ms Rachelle was not subjected to harassment and bullying by Air New Zealand, or anyone employed by it. This claim is unsuccessful.’’

Air New Zealand is entitled to an award of costs.

‘‘Air New Zealand did not breach any of its workplace policies or procedures.’’