ERA Releases Recommendations To Settle Te Roopu Taurima Dispute Due To Public Interest
The ERA recommendations include reference to the current salary for kaitaataki (leaders in the houses providing residential disability support) not having increased for two years. It recommends an increase from $70,500 to $74,000 from 31 May 2025 and …
The PSA welcomes the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) making public its recommendations for settling a Collective Agreement with workers employed by disability support provider Te Roopu Taurima o Manukau.
The recommendations, made after four days of hearings with an independent ERA Facilitator involving Te Roopu Taurima and the PSA representing 38 workers, had been confidential.
However, the ERA has now released them as they are a matter of public interest, said Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi National Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons.
The trust was seeking to unduly restrict secondary employment that many of the underpaid workers rely on, and to impose a 90-day trial period for new workers into the Collective Agreement.
The ERA recommendations include reference to the current salary for kaitaataki (leaders in the houses providing residential disability support) not having increased for two years. It recommends an increase from $70,500 to $74,000 from 31 May 2025 and an increase to $77,600 from 31 May 2026.
Other recommendations include:
– No 90-day trial or probationary period;
– Lump sum payments of $500 and $1200 over two years to reflect the bargaining period;
– The payments to be made for extra hours; and
– A process around secondary employment.
'The Authority has made the right call here in publicly releasing the recommendations that would settle the ongoing industrial dispute at Te Roopu Taurima. The parties are due to attend mediation in Auckland on Monday,' said Fitzsimons.
'The PSA did not get everything we wanted in the ERA recommendations but we accept the work of the ERA and are confident the recommendations will settle the dispute.
'The recommendations from the ERA come after an ongoing industrial dispute that has involved strikes, a lockout, which the union is contesting in the Employment Court, a threatened suspension as well as the four days spent with the independent ERA facilitator.
Te Roopu Taurima Te Roopu Taurima o Manukau Trust is the country's largest provider of kaupapa Māori-based support for people with disabilities in residential facilities in Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Canterbury.
'Kaitaataki play a critical role in the work of Te Roopu Taurima including in looking after vulnerable tangata, they want to put this dispute behind them and get on with their work.
'We call on Te Roopu Taurima to immediately accept the recommendations of the Employment Relations Authority so that this dispute is settled,' Fitzsimons said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
'Unique' espionage trial of a NZ soldier to be heard next week
A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week – a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign country at the centre of the espionage case, as well as the names of some prosecution expert witnesses. RNZ was opposing these orders and a suppression hearing was scheduled for next Monday morning, before the court martial would begin. In late 2020, 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act were laid against the soldier, including espionage and possessing objectionable material. Since then, the case has wended its way through pre-trial hearings. ADVERTISEMENT RNZ has previously reported the soldier, aged 27 at the time of his arrest, was a member of far-right groups the Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia. First of its kind A similar case 50 years ago tried and acquitted Bill Sutch in the civilian court of espionage, for passing information to the Russians. Next week's court martial is the first military case. "I think 'unusual' is not the right term," said retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge about the prosecution. "I think 'unique' might be the correct term." Hodge said the suppression orders appeared extensive. "I've always been surprised that there could be information held by the armed forces, which absolutely had to be kept top secret. ADVERTISEMENT "There maybe information about the citizens of a foreign jurisdiction and what they're doing here, but still, that would be of public interest." Hodge said military courts were historically ahead of civilian ones on matters of justice and fairness, although they might hold concerns about making information public. "Remember, the background of a military court would concern hostilities and [be] in the face of the enemy. In that sort of situation, that sort of context, they would be greatly concerned with information that would aid the enemy. "I don't see an enemy at this moment, so I'm still mystified at what secrecy they'll be pursuing." Military panel to hear the case One difference between courts martial and civilian courts is that, instead of a jury, a panel of senior military officers hears the evidence, and decides on a defendant's guilt or innocence, and – if applicable – their sentence. In his previous career in the military, Hodge sat on these panels. ADVERTISEMENT "A military court is concerned with fairness, right to counsel, the insanity defence, for example, the discovery of information," he said. "One thing I could say firmly is the individual will have a fair trial, because in my experience, it's a fair system." David Pawson is an experienced court martial counsel and, in 30 years – firstly with the military police, then as a lawyer – he has never seen a similar case. "When I was a military police special investigator – that was at the end of the Cold War period – and even during that period, I was not aware of any investigation of that sort of nature. I have to say that was a new one to me." The system was robust and transparent, he said. "The court martial, in my experience, has always been very careful not to be seen as a secretive court and generally does apply those principles the same way that they do in the civil court." This meant the starting point for suppression decisions was open justice. Another experienced court martial lawyer, Michael Bott, said talking to a military panel was somewhat different to addressing a jury. ADVERTISEMENT "There are military values you have to take into account and also, with a court martial, it's governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act, as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Bill of Rights still applies. "When you're doing an opening and a closing, the processes and techniques are pretty much transferable." He said suppression arguments at courts martial sometimes included matters not applicable to civilian courts, such as national security. Hodge said he didn't think the court martial would reflect badly on New Zealand's reputation. "I think there's the opposite argument that the allies could say, 'New Zealand is alert, New Zealand is sufficiently concerned about this matter and they're looking after whatever information this might be'. "While you could say, 'Is New Zealand a leaky sieve?', no, New Zealand is behaving properly and attending to the disciplinary side of a possible breach." If the soldier was found guilty next week, he wouldn't face the death penalty. This was removed from military law in 1989, but sentences for courts martial ranged from losing rank to a lengthy term in military prison. ADVERTISEMENT
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trial of New Zealand soldier accused of espionage remains shrouded in secrecy
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week – a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Espionage trial of NZ soldier shrouded in secrecy
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week - a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign country at the centre of the espionage case, as well as the names of some prosecution expert witnesses. RNZ is opposing these orders and a suppression hearing is scheduled for Monday morning, before the court martial begins. In late 2020, 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act were laid against the soldier, including espionage and possessing objectionable material. Since then, the case has wended its way through pre-trial hearings. RNZ has previously reported the soldier, aged 27 at the time of his arrest, was a member of far-right groups the Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia. First of its kind A similar case 50 years ago saw Bill Sutch tried and acquitted in the civilian court of espionage, for passing information to the Russians. Next week's court martial is the first military case. "I think 'unusual' is not the right term," said retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge about the prosecution. "I think 'unique' might be the correct term." Hodge said the suppression orders appeared extensive. "I've always been surprised that there could be information held by the armed forces, which absolutely had to be kept top secret. "There maybe information about the citizens of a foreign jurisdiction and what they're doing here, but still, that would be of public interest." Hodge said military courts were historically ahead of civilian ones on matters of justice and fairness, although they might hold concerns about making information public. "Remember, the background of a military court would concern hostilities and [be] in the face of the enemy. In that sort of situation, that sort of context, they would be greatly concerned with information that would aid the enemy. "I don't see an enemy at this moment, so I'm still mystified at what secrecy they'll be pursuing." Military panel to hear the case One difference between courts martial and civilian courts is that, instead of a jury, a panel of senior military officers hears the evidence, and decides on a defendant's guilt or innocence, and - if applicable - their sentence. In his previous career in the military, Hodge sat on these panels. "A military court is concerned with fairness, right to counsel, the insanity defence, for example, the discovery of information," he said. "One thing I could say firmly is the individual will have a fair trial, because in my experience, it's a fair system." David Pawson is an experienced court martial counsel and, in 30 years - firstly with the military police, then as a lawyer - he has never seen a similar case. "When I was a military police special investigator - that was at the end of the Cold War period - and even during that period, I was not aware of any investigation of that sort of nature. I have to say that was a new one to me." The system was robust and transparent, he said. "The court martial, in my experience, has always been very careful not to be seen as a secretive court and generally does apply those principles the same way that they do in the civil court." This meant the starting point for suppression decisions was open justice. Another experienced court martial lawyer, Michael Bott, said talking to a military panel was somewhat different to addressing a jury. "There are military values you have to take into account and also, with a court martial, it's governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act, as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Bill of Rights still applies. "When you're doing an opening and a closing, the processes and techniques are pretty much transferable." He said suppression arguments at courts martial sometimes included matters not applicable to civilian courts, such as national security. Hodge said he didn't think the court martial would reflect badly on New Zealand's reputation. "I think there's the opposite argument that the allies could say, 'New Zealand is alert, New Zealand is sufficiently concerned about this matter and they're looking after whatever information this might be'. "While you could say, 'Is New Zealand a leaky sieve?', no, New Zealand is behaving properly and attending to the disciplinary side of a possible breach." If the soldier is found guilty next week, he won't face the death penalty. This was removed from military law in 1989, but sentences for courts martial range from losing rank to a lengthy term in military prison.
