Employment Relations Authority says flight attendant case against Air New Zealand 'vexatious'

Kathleen Milne started work for Air New Zealand in the 1970s. Photo / Supplied

A former Air New Zealand flight attendant's latest case against the airline has been thrown out by the Employment Relations Authority and described as frivolous and vexatious.

Kathleen Milne worked for the airline for more than 30 years until 2004 and the latest ruling is the seventh finding against her in the ERA or Employment Court.

She had wanted another investigation into an employment relationship breakdown that stemmed from what she described as "the separation from family and my home country and financial hardship due to the terms and conditions of employment from 1972 to 2006".

In the latest ruling, authority member Robin Arthur cited a determination last year which said the action had got to the stage where it ''trifled'' with the authority's process.

Milne's career with Air New Zealand ended when she was dismissed on the grounds of medical incapacity. She had been medically certified as permanently unfit to fly and Air New Zealand was not able to find any suitable and available alternative position she was qualified to perform.

The 2018 determination said Milne's disappointment and disagreement with how her employment came to an end more than 13 years ago clearly remained of personal importance and seriousness to her.

''However, her attempts to continue litigation about those circumstances have reached a stage where they trifle with the authority's process because the substance of her claims have already been determined in 2011 and 2012 and the court has struck out the challenges to those determinations in 2014. In that context Ms Milne's current application is frivolous.''

That was apparent when it was considered in the further context of her two unsuccessful applications in 2016 (for damages and for a reopening of the 2011 investigation).

All three applications had sought to re-argue matters already decided on the same evidence.

Arthur said the authority had to consider whether Milne's latest application - lodged in January this year - was the same used in 2018.

Milne, who is living in southern Queensland, in her most recent case had provided copies of documents dated 1971 and 1972 about the arrangements for her employment with Air New Zealand. Some correspondence from Air New Zealand in those years had been sent to her care of addresses for her father, then resident in the Queensland town of Mount Isa, and her brother in Sydney.

She also provided what appeared to be a copy of a medical record that included notes on a knee injury in 1973, neck pain in 1974 and hearing issues in 1979.

Arthur said it was not clear how any of this related to an employment relationship problem but her application ended with a statement that "during 1973 and 1974 she attended the Air New Zealand doctor where she reported illness and injury".

''There was nothing in her application that explained how her references to 'separation from family and … home country' and 'financial hardship' during the years of her employment with Air New Zealand amounted to unjustified actions by the company, that could be the basis of a personal grievance, or a breach of her terms of employment,'' he said.

''Given the history of this matter, and particularly the court's decision to strike out challenges filed by Ms Milne, the Authority's 2011 determination stands as a final decision about the justifiability of what Air New Zealand did and decided in the events that led to its decision to end the employment relationship. The principle of finality applies to end litigation over the same point again and again.''

Costs of more than $20,000 have previously been awarded against Milne (which had been unpaid in 2014) and he gave the airline leave to seek costs in the latest case.

Comment has been sought from Air New Zealand.