Far North council staff ‘thrown under the bus' with restructure, union says
But when the union asked for data about this alleged underperformance, the council pointed to a 2023 review of the NTA.
Ringrose said the information not only did not answer the question, it was provided after the council's consultation period.
Ringrose says this was in breach of the Employment Relations Act - Far North District Council chief executive Guy Holroyd says the council has adhered to all requirements of the act.
Despite the union's protests, the council continued, giving a date of August 4 for implementation.
The workers have been left feeling angry, he said.
'They're really upset at being thrown under the bus. They're being painted as ineffective and unmanageable.'
Some of the workers at Far North District Council's roading department have been working in the district for 20 years. Photo / NZME
A council worker and union representative, who asked not to be named, believes the council has no data to show the in-house team has been underperforming.
The workers have not only responded to complaints, they have planned out work for the next two years of the council's roading-focused Long Term Plan, she said.
Another worry was the council's initial proposal named an incumbent service supplier as the 'winner' of the new professional services contract, the representative said.
After concerns were raised by both the union and NZ Transport Agency, the council moved to an open procurement process. However, workers were told there would not be any opportunities for them to work with the external provider, she said.
The union representative likened the restructure to the Hunger Games and said workers were left feeling 'absolutely gutted'.
'They're extremely disappointed and angry.'
The job losses will result in a loss of expertise, with some working with the council and NTA for 20 years, she said.
Far North District Council chief executive Guy Holroyd says the Employment Relations Act requirements were followed with the moves to outsource the roading department.
Ringrose said the PSA's lawyers are considering legal action.
Change driven by operational needs and market, council says
FNDC chief executive Guy Holroyd said outsourcing the roading department was needed to improve efficiency and gain expertise not available in-house.
'The change is part of efforts to streamline operations, improve efficiency and provide better roading services to the community.
'Outsourcing certain functions will allow us to leverage specialised expertise and resources not currently available in-house.'
Holroyd said communities and ratepayers can expect to benefit from improved service quality and cost-effectiveness.
'By outsourcing to specialised providers, we will achieve enhanced efficiencies and innovative solutions that better meet the needs of the Far North.'
The council has followed a comprehensive process, including stakeholder consultations and risk assessments, and adhered to all requirements of the Employment Relations Act, Holroyd said.
'The council recognises the impact this transition will have on staff and is committed to supporting affected employees through this period.'
The timing of the change was driven by operational needs and market conditions, he said.
'While it has only been a year since NTA was disestablished, the council identified an opportunity to enhance service delivery and achieve cost efficiencies in what is our single biggest budget line.'
Holroyd said the council has been working with NZTA to ensure a fair and transparent procurement process is in place for the new professional services contract.
Denise Piper is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on health and business. She has more than 20 years in journalism and is passionate about covering stories that make a difference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
Article – RNZ Treasury documents show the pay equity reset was key to meeting the coalition's cost-cutting goals., Political Reporter The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers. A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency. At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period. 'This is justified' – Brooke van Velden The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been 'limited testing and analysis' of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were 'inconsistent' with general principles. MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be 'contentious' but without them it was unlikely the amendments would 'meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration.' The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement. The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act. The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified. 'I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided,' van Velden wrote. Finding the contingencies In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims. In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach. 'While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties,' officials said. 'The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate.' It also meant the Cabinet had 'poor visibility' of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement. Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances. By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector. This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy. However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment. It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process. How the money was found Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance. This saved $9.6b over the forecast period. For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level. 'On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence,' Treasury wrote. The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period. In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances. Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially 'strain the credibility' of future Budget allowances. And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed. Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was 'predominantly performed by female employees.' All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
Lack of planning led to Kaitāia's aquifer project budget blow-out and delays, review finds
Work gets underway in 2020 on a pipeline bringing bore water to Kaitāia's water treatment plant. Photo: Peter de Graaf A report on a Kaitāia water project that took 14 years instead of five and cost millions of dollars more than expected has found a lack of planning was one of the key reasons for the project's troubles. In 2011 the Far North District Council, under the former mayor, decided to drill two bores into the Sweetwater aquifer north of Kaitāia to stop the town running out of water during its frequent summer droughts. However, bore water only started flowing through the town's taps early this year, prompting councillor Mate Radich to call for a judicial review. Radich had also become frustrated by being unable to establish the project's total cost. In May this year, councillors voted to seek an internal review instead, given the high cost of a judicial review. The report, presented at Thursday's council meeting in Kaikohe, finally provided a definitive project cost of $18,016,070. Of that, just $2.4 million was spent developing the initial bore site from 2011-17. The bulk of the money, $14.9m, was spent on bore improvements and pipeline construction between 2020 and 2024. A significant part of that, just under $2.5m, went on "access costs" including land purchase ($250,000) and easements/compensation payments to landowners ($1.63m). Another $708,000 was spent this year on a membrane bio-reactor treatment trial, when it became apparent Kaitāia's existing treatment plant was unsuited to the silica-rich water from the aquifer. The town's water is usually drawn from the drought-sensitive Awanui River. The money came from rates and reserves ($3.3m), loans ($11.7m) and external grants ($3m, mostly from the Provincial Growth Fund). The report found the key reason for the delays was "the absence of a single, over-arching project plan". The project lacked a proper business case, which would have identified all the components required, provided an overview of the expected cost and delivery timeframe, and established key milestones for reporting and decision making. Failing to engage early with affected property owners and mana whenua forced re-designs and cost time, while the use of external project managers increased the expense. The report also found delays resulted from inadequate asset management and the "stop-start effect" caused by staff turnover. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
6 days ago
- RNZ News
Calendar Girls strip clubs forced to take down posts about women involved in employment dispute
By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of The owners of the Calendar Girls strip clubs have been forced to take down posts identifying dancers suing the firm. Seven women are currently pursuing an application in the Employment Court for a declaration of their employment status. A non-publication order was issued in May, suppressing their identities, after they raised concerns about their safety and damage to their reputations, due to the stigma attached to the work they had been doing. One of the women has now returned to court, alleging breaches of the order by Calendar Girls NZ Ltd, the company named as the defendant in their case. Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis hastily scheduled a hearing this week to hear the woman. "I accorded urgency to the application, given the nature of the alleged breaches and the concerns that had underpinned the making of the orders of non-publication in the first place," the judge said in a recent judgement. The urgent hearing was set down for Thursday, but was cancelled, after lawyers for both sides agreed non-publication orders should be respected. "The defendants confirm that they have removed all offending posts," Judge Inglis said. However, her judgement did not detail what was in the posts. The seven women are seeking a declaration that they were employees of Calendar Girls NZ Ltd under the Employment Relations Act 2000. Being an employee, rather than a contractor, gives entitlement to a wider range of legal protections, including minimum conditions, protection from discrimination, health and safety, and the ability to bargain collectively. In 2023, dancers from the Wellington Calendar Girls club attempted to bargain collectively, after being offered a contract that they said was "manipulative". Nineteen were told to clear out their lockers and not come back to work through a Facebook post, after asking for changes to the way they were paid. In seeking non-publication orders in the current case, filed in the Wellington Employment Court, the seven women raised several concerns about having their identities made public. Women in the clubs use a professional name while working there and are instructed not to give their real names to customers. Chief Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis. Photo: NZ Herald / George Heard However, their case in the Employment Court has been taken using their real names. The women involved in the case feared publication of their identities would "severely impact" their employment and housing prospects, and their ability to travel. They said the stigma attached to their work at Calendar Girls had already led to judgements about their morality and respectability. The women are all young, and fear damage to their reputations and the impact on their families. They also said they had safety concerns about former clients and members of the public. One of the women is a member of a church and worries about others in the congregation finding out. Others have had tenancy applications declined and another woman said she was dismissed from a government agency, when it became known she had worked in the sex industry. Judge Inglis has now ordered Calendar Girls not to disclose the names, identifying particulars or photographs of the seven women who have taken the case. She said this applied to "all forms of communication, including oral, written, electronic and any other medium". The substantive case has been scheduled for a five-day fixture in February 2026. Calendar Girls NZ Ltd is a Christchurch-based company that operates clubs in Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington and Queenstown. This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
