File photo. Photo: RNZ
Workers First Union says it's had to take on a number of retail chain stores over employees' rights to have a drink bottle at work - and it says if supermarket checkout operators aren't being allowed drink bottles it will tackle that too.
A Reddit post at the weekend claimed New World checkout operators were not being allowed drink bottles while they worked.
Foodstuffs, which operates the New World and Pak'nSave brands has been approached for comment.
The supermarkets were operated by individual owner-operators.
Rudd Hughes, Workers First Union deputy secretary said the Foodstuffs model let supermarkets set their own individual employment policies, so there was no consistent standard across the country for allow staff to access water.
"Access to drinking water at work is a basic health and safety right, and our union will pursue any breach of this standard with store managers at Foodstuffs supermarkets on behalf of our members," he said.
"This is an issue the union has dealt with in a number of retail chain stores, and we have successfully been able to make the case that denying staff a basic right like access to drinking water while at work is not enforceable, sensible or practical."
He said retail staff were often in understaffed stores where leaving to get water was not possible because of the workload, or customers waiting.
"Store owners must ensure staff can have drink bottles with them on the shop floor where possible, and if not, they must make it easy and quick for workers to leave their post to hydrate as needed.
"Anything less is inexcusable."
He said it was not a problem at Woolworths.
Alison Maelzer, an employment law expert at Hesketh Henry, said whether an employer could enforce a "no drink bottles" rule would depend on the terms of the employment agreement or company policies.
"It may be a term or condition in the applicable employment agreement that employees are not allowed personal belongings - which would include water bottles - at the checkout counter.
"If this is the case, then it could only be changed by agreement with the employees. Alternatively, if it is not a term that exists in the employment agreement or any policies, the employment agreement is likely to stipulate how policies or rules can be amended, varied, or introduced.
"This may require the employee's agreement in writing, or the employer may just need to consult with the employees regarding the introduction of any new policies.
"If the employer acts in accordance with the terms of the employment agreement and/or policies, then that is fine. If they do not, and, for example, introduce a new term unilaterally when they require the employee's agreement, they could be at risk of breaching the employment agreement, or their own policies.
"Where the rubber really hits the road in terms of determining the reasonableness of this type of instruction/rule would be if an employee were to breach it, and the employer tried to take disciplinary action."
She said the question of whether the rule was fair in the first place would be relevant to assess whether the employee should receive, for example, a formal warning.
"The consideration would take into account how the rule was introduced, the employer's reasons for the rule, and any other relevant circumstances, including, for example, any medical conditions or personal issues that an employee could point to as a reason for needing ready access to water.
"If the rule was not reasonable, then any disciplinary action taken for breaching it would also be unreasonable.
"There is also a possibility that an employee could raise a grievance alleging that the rule itself unreasonably disadvantaged them - for example, on the basis of the employer not ensuring their health and safety. "
Sign up for Money with Susan Edmunds, a weekly newsletter covering all the things that affect how we make, spend and invest money.
