A Northland Rescue Helicopter lifts off from its base in Kensington, Whangarei. Photo: RNZ/Peter de Graaf
A helicopter paramedic who says he was disadvantaged and discriminated against because of his romantic relationship has been awarded $10,000 compensation.
Josh Raravula took his case against Northern Rescue Helicopter, which provides rescue helicopter services in Northland and Auckland, to the Employment Relations Authority.
He was upset that his roster line was changed without his consent to avoid him working with his partner, also a critical care paramedic.
The organisation argued that it was a health and safety risk, to have people in a romantic relationship working together.
It said Raravula was fairly consulted and given sufficient information before a decision was made.
Raravula started seeing his partner in 2023, at which time all their shifts were the same. They worked four days, then had four days off. They were on the same helicopter half the time.
In April that year, a few staff and an external person approached now chief operating officer Karl Taylor and deputy clinical operations manager Paul Davis about their concerns that the relationship could affect their work.
Davis told Raravula there was no policy in place and personal life was personal, if things were professional.
But while Raravula's impression was that initial hostility to the relationship died down, about half the staff spoke to a manager about it.
A survey also generated comments that people in a relationship should not work together.
Raravula was not informed of this. It was raised with him in a performance appraisal in September when he was told there was a proposal to move him to a different shift.
He did not agree.
Authority member Nicola Craig said by this point the organisation had decided the relationship was an unacceptable risk.
Davis then emailed Raravula and said there was a collective flight operations and clinical management agreement that he and his partner should no longer work together and they "intend to swap" his roster line, although were open to exploring other potential roster change options. "Either way, a change to the roster line will occur in the latter part of October."
His union responded with a proposal to have him stay on the same roster but on a different aircraft.
The new roster took effect in December and Raravula said it meant the couple only had one proper day off together.
The organisation said it did not accept Raravula had suffered detriment or disadvantage as a result of its actions. He was doing the same job, had the same opportunities and was working on the same conditions as before the roster change.
But Craig said there were problems with the process.
The initial discussion gave no sense to Raravula that there were serious future concerns.
"In fact, he felt reassured that as long as there was professional behaviour at work, the organisation was comfortable."
She said it was not fair for the organisation to reach a conclusion that the pair should not fly together before they were consulted.
She said the process had not been carried out adequately, there was a lack of communication over an extended period and even when communication began, there were elements that did not help maintain a constructive employment relationship.
She said he had been disadvantaged and the organisation had breached its duty of good faith.
Craig was not satisfied that reinstating his former roster was reasonable and practicable but said the organisation would be wise to continue to assess whether its changing staffing and rostering arrangements could accommodate a move to have the couple working more shifts together.
She said compensation of $10,000 was warranted.
Employment law expert Alison Maelzer, of Hesketh Henry, said she could not comment on the case specifically but there were situations where employers might have rules or policies to prohibit, or restrict, couples working together.
"It would be important to establish a genuine business reason for the requirement, and of course, to follow any obligations to consult about the introduction of new rules or policies.
"Some couples might meet the definition of 'de facto relationship' which means that they will be included within the definition of 'family status' under the Human Rights Act 1993. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their family status, which includes being married or in a civil union or de facto relationship with a particular person.
"Discrimination in employment includes failing to employ, dismissing, and offering or affording to some employees different terms of employment than those available to others in similar circumstances. This means that a policy that prohibits hiring married or de facto couples or that gives them different terms, might on its face, be discriminatory. However, there are exceptions, including where one person reports to the other, or a risk of collusion between them to the detriment of the employer."
She said in cases of other relationships the employer should ensure any policy or instruction as lawful and reasonable and for genuine business reasons.
"Employers should definitely take legal advice before changing an employee's position (or worse, dismissing them) due to their relationship with a colleague."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
