Latest news with #EmploymentRelationsAuthority
Otago Daily Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Pay equity changes under intense scrutiny
The government's recent reforms of pay equity legislation have certainly stirred up a hornets' nest. It has defended the rushing through of these reforms to provide legal certainty on claims involving women's pay. However, opponents have claimed it is to achieve crucial savings as Budget day looms. David Seymour claims that Brooke van Velden has "saved the Budget" for the government. Ms Van Velden's Cabinet paper claims settlements under the current regime were costing the government $1.55 billion a year. The changes will discontinue 33 pay equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers. So, let us have a look at the history of the legislation and the changes proposed. How did pay equity come about? Kristine Bartlett was an aged care worker for Terranova Homes. In 2012 she brought a claim through E Tū that she had been on low pay for 20 years because her work in aged care was predominantly performed by women. The case went to the Supreme Court, with the court agreeing that anyone who does "women's work" can make a pay equity claim under the Equal Pay Act. The government agreed to a $2b settlement and to fund 20%-40% pay increases for care workers over the following five years. A joint working group with unions, businesses and officials was established to agree on a set of pay equity principles. The Equal Pay Amendment Act was passed in 2020. What was the process? The legislation required employers to make sure there was no pay differentiation on the basis of sex where work was predominantly performed by female employees. The legislation looked at factors such as same or substantially similar skills; responsibility; experience and work under the same or substantially similar conditions, with the same or substantially similar degrees of effort. Where an employee did not think this obligation was being met, they could raise a pay equity claim. The claim would be considered arguable if it related to work that was predominantly performed by female employees and the work was currently undervalued or had historically been undervalued. The parties were then required to undertake an assessment to determine whether the work was undervalued on the basis of sex. That analysis included an assessment of the nature of the work to which the claim related; the nature of comparators, including skills, responsibilities, conditions of work, degree of effort, level of experience and any other relevant features, together with the terms and conditions of employment. If undervaluation was established, the parties were required to settle the claim by agreeing on remuneration that did not differentiate on the basis of sex. While the government has claimed that the system was unworkable, the legislation provided for assistance by way of Mediation Services, Employment Relations Authority facilitation and, ultimately, determination by the Employment Relations Authority. So, what are the changes? The changes announced, after being pushed through under urgency, result in 33 claims having to start again. This retrospective implementation of the amendments has been highly criticised. The changes include: — raising the threshold of "predominantly performed by female employees" from 60% to 70% and requiring that this has been the case for at least 10 consecutive years; — restating the purpose of the legislation as providing a process that facilitates the resolution of pay equity claims where there is evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work that is predominantly performed by female employees; — amending the threshold for raising a claim from "is arguable" to "has merit"; — employers may opt out of a multi-employer claim without having to provide reasons based on reasonable grounds for doing so. This decision cannot be challenged; — introducing a hierarchy of comparators and adding more prescription to comparison methodology; — providing for phasing of pay equity settlements; — removing the provision for the Employment Relations Authority to award back pay; — introducing a 10-year limit on claims being reintroduced relating to the same employees or workforce. Public vs private sector Business New Zealand chief executive Katherine Rich has agreed changes were needed and that the previous claims were creating large anomalies between public and private sectors. "Increases in public health sector remuneration have created difficulties in the private sector where they can't afford those pay rates. "Where those private sector employers receive government funding for some services, it is not enough to cover the contracted services they provide. As a result, they are losing staff, suffering from industrial action and face problems in delivering their contracted work." In one LinkedIn post Ms van Velden stated: "Pay equity is also here to stay. This is the concept that men and women doing different jobs of the same value should be paid the same. This is different from equal pay and more subjective. Because it's more subjective, there needs to be a system to figure out value and undervaluation, and whether this undervaluation is because of discrimination based on sex." Whether the changes are designed to save the Budget for the government or to provide legal certainty on claims involving women's pay, the opposing cry that this is "a war on women" is not likely to quieten any time soon. — John Farrow is a partner with Anderson Lloyd, specialising in employment law. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not purport to be specific legal or professional advice.
Scoop
15-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
PSA Strongly Opposes Decisions Released By Health NZ – Further Dismantling Of Our Public Health System By Government
Press Release – PSA The union filed these legal proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority in February because several proposed restructures breached the Code of Good Faith for the public health sector, the Employment Relations Act 2000, collective agreements … The PSA strongly opposes final decisions released by Health New Zealand for the following teams: Procurement, Supply Chain and Health Technology Management (PSC&HTM), Planning, Funding and Outcomes, and Audit, Assurance & Risk. 'These decisions include the possible loss of specialists procurement, auditing and health innovation and improvement,' Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi national secretary, Fleur Fitzsimons, said. 'The possible loss of these roles has been forced on Health NZ by the Government imposing cuts to our health system that will affect patients. We call on Government to stop these endless cuts to our health system. 'This is why we are still fighting this in the Employment Relations Authority, which is why this will not be implemented until the Authority has heard and determined the matter or the PSA and Health New Zealand have settled it by agreement.' The union filed these legal proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority in February because several proposed restructures breached the Code of Good Faith for the public health sector, the Employment Relations Act 2000, collective agreements and Te Mauri o Rongo – NZ Health Charter. 'We'll be making it clear to all our members that legal action is still going ahead and we strongly oppose these Health NZ changes.' Last month, the PSA agreed a settlement with Health NZ stopping the restructuring of the National Public Health Service and two directorates in the Planning Funding and Outcomes business unit: Data and Analytics, Community Mental Health Funding and Investment, and Data and Digital Services. Litigation remains in place for Planning Funding and Outcomes (Former Service Improvement and Innovation functions): Te Whatu Ora Improve; Evidence, Research and Clinical Trial; Operations; Population Health Gain; Consumer Whanau Voice; Former Office of the Chief Executive (OCE): Strategic Planning and Procurement Supply Chain and Health Technology Management. Earlier today, the PSA also announced further litigation against Health NZ to stop another round of cuts to their Audit, Assurance and Risk, People and Culture, Finance Stage 1, and Communications and Engagement teams.
Scoop
14-05-2025
- Scoop
Pink Shirt Day: Commit To A Safer, Kinder Work Environment
Bullying isn't just a schoolyard problem. On Pink Shirt Day, we're reminded of the severe harm bullying can cause in the workplace and the responsibility we all share to call it out and do our part to prevent it. Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour that causes physical or psychological harm. Bullying isn't always loud or obvious and often includes subtle actions like exclusion, constant criticism, or the act of setting someone up to fail. While not every unpleasant workplace experience is bullying, the nature and context of the communication or behaviour may lend itself to bullying behaviour. The recent 2024 case of Parker v Magnum demonstrates how sustained patterns of psychological mistreatment, even when subtle, can constitute workplace bullying, leading to significant mental and physical health consequences for employees. One of the behaviours that Mr Parker experienced at the hands of a senior member of staff was the frequent and repeated overt and implied threats about Mr Parker's job being 'in jeopardy,' particularly during periods of business stress. This created a persistent sense of instability and fear. Mr Parker was allegedly excluded from meetings, audited unfairly, and accused of misusing company time. Witnesses described a cycle of emotional manipulation, where the senior staff member would at times be threatening and abusive and at other times offer false flattery to staff. The effects of bullying can be severe, including increased stress, anxiety, depression, and isolation for the person targeted. Witnesses suffer too, and toxic work culture quickly erodes productivity, increases absenteeism, and creates turnover problems. When bullying becomes normalised, everyone loses. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, employers must take all reasonably practicable steps to protect workers against harm from hazards and risks. Bullying is a workplace hazard. That means an employer must protect its employees against bullying behaviours, including acting on complaints, investigating thoroughly, and preventing recurrence. The case of Higgs v Canterbury Relocations Ltd highlights just how seriously employers must take their legal duty to provide a safe and respectful work environment. Employed by Canterbury Relocations Ltd, a removal and storage company, Ms Higgs endured a toxic workplace culture driven by her manager's bullying behaviour, including aggression, excessive demands, and persistent verbal abuse. Despite raising concerns multiple times, no meaningful steps were taken by senior leadership, the company director even dismissing her complaints with the phrase, "that is what he is like." Subjected to emotional distress, Ms Higgs ultimately suffered a mental health crisis and resigned. The Employment Relations Authority later found that Canterbury Relocations had breached its contractual obligation to provide a safe workplace and awarded Ms Higgs $15,000 in general damages. This case is a powerful reminder that workplace bullying isn't just a moral or cultural issue, it's a legal one. Ignoring bullying can lead to serious legal and reputational consequences for an employer. Too often, employees fear being labelled a 'troublemaker' or 'problem child' when they raise concerns. But silence enables harm. Pink Shirt Day is a timely reminder that speaking up is an act of courage and care, for yourself and others. When making a complaint, try to: Be specific – include dates, behaviours, and impacts. Look to your workplace's bullying and harassment policies to determine how to best approach the complaint. Workplaces should be places where people feel safe, valued, and able to do their best work, not places of fear or distress. Whether you're an employer or employee, Pink Shirt Day is your opportunity to challenge stigma, foster inclusion, and commit to a safer, kinder work environment. If you are concerned about raising bullying and harassment concerns, BuckettLaw can assist in drafting a complaint or raising a personal grievance if your employer is not meeting its obligations and duties of care towards you.
Scoop
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Public Service Work From Home Policies Dispute Heading To Employment Relations Authority
Press Release – PSA Public Service Association Te Pkenga Here Tikanga Mahi National Secretary, Fleur Fitzsimons, said they were dismayed to have not settled the matter quickly for public sector workers. Confidential mediation today failed to resolve the difference between the PSA and the government on public service work from home policies, and the issue is now heading to the Employment Relations Authority. Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi National Secretary, Fleur Fitzsimons, said they were dismayed to have not settled the matter quickly for public sector workers. 'While we're still open to settling this matter outside of the Authority, the government is digging in its heels on its arbitrary wish to force public servants, who have performed to a high standard for years now while working from home, back into the office. 'Not having working from home as the default disadvantages women, who make up 62 per cent of the public service and who disproportionately hold whanau care responsibilities. 'Working from home is good for women, good for people with chronic health conditions, and good for people with disabilities. It's good for everyone including employers and even the government too.' In 2018, the PSA entered in into an agreement – the Gender Pay Principles, following legal action in the Employment Court to establish principles governing work performed by women in accordance with the Equal Pay Act 1972. The follow up agreement, Flexible Work by Default, gave effect to these principles and was signed by the PSA, CTU, the State Services Commission (as it then was) and the Ministry for Women in 2020. 'The fact of the matter is, the government entered into the Gender Pay Principles and the Flexible Work by Default agreements. 'You can't just rip up these agreements when thousands of people rely on them to maintain their personal and whanau wellbeing. 'But then – we didn't see much care for women when the government also ripped up the Pay Equity Bill last week.' Previous media statements:
RNZ News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Union, government mediation over working from home restrictions fails
Women are disproportionately affected by the flexible work restrictions. Photo: RNZ The public sector union says mediation has failed to resolve its conflict with the government over working from home. The union headed into mediation with the government on Tuesday to try to stop restrictions to flexible work practices. At the end of last year guidelines were sent out to public sector chief executives to tighten up on flexible working arrangements . The government said working from home arrangements should only be by agreement, should not compromise performance, and departments and agencies must regularly report on the number and nature of agreements in place. In December the PSA filed action against the move with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons told Morning Report she wanted the government to step away from the idea, similar to Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton did during this year's Australian election , to say "we got this wrong, we are sorry". But Fitzsimons said after mediation failed the case was now heading to the ERA for resolution. She said the union was dismayed to have not settled the matter quickly for public sector workers. Fitzsimons said not being able to work from home disadvantaged women who make up 62 percent of the public service workforce. She said flexible working conditions helped women access career opportunities, while maintaining family commitments as well. "It's good for employers, people are more productive, they concentrate better, so it is common sense as well."
