I'm victim of Bailey factor, says Wood

Bill Ralston confronts Susan Wood across the table at the Employment Relations Authority hearing yesterday. Picture / Martin Sykes

Television New Zealand's unscripted salary sideshow is turning into one of its most compelling dramas.

Its top-paid presenter, fiance at her side, sat across the table from her embattled boss yesterday as talk of pay increments the size of the average wage was bandied about.

Close Up's Susan Wood told the Employment Relations Authority of her salary hell on learning of plans to cut $100,000 from her $450,000 annual pay packet, saying it had been "an appalling few weeks for me on a personal level".

"It has affected my sleeping, eating and how I've felt. [Fiance Kevin Stanley] saw me shout at my children, which normally I wouldn't do.

"I guess a sign of stress is you take it out on an easy target, which I am ashamed of."

Wood claimed in her personal grievance action that TVNZ was using her fixed-term agreement to force a significant salary reduction.

She asked authority member Leon Robinson to rule that as she was a permanent employee, TVNZ could not cut her salary.

Head of news and current affairs Bill Ralston explained that his hands were tied by directives from the TVNZ board over salaries.

Wood said she had become the victim of fallout over Judy Bailey's salary.

"It feels to me that I'm being punished for a political environment that I didn't create or cause, but because other people got $800,000 salaries. I don't get $800,000 salaries."

She wants to keep the $450,000 salary she agreed to on taking over the 7pm slot vacated by Paul Holmes' departure for Prime and to get compensation for hurt and humiliation over the handling of her contract.

"I've got a job which is the toughest in broadcasting. You get up there night after night to slug it out, you have to be well read and have a broad range of interests, behave yourself in public, and I think it's worth every cent, if not more.

"$450,000 is a long way from the package Paul Holmes had. And what I do is not just reading the news. It requires a whole range of skills."

Outcry over Bailey's salary has been played out against a backdrop of TV One's slide in the ratings against TV3. The board last week instructed CEO Ian Fraser to oversee higher salary negotiations rather than leave them to Mr Ralston, prompting Mr Fraser's resignation at the weekend.

Mr Ralston told the tribunal he approached the board for the right to negotiate up to $350,000 this year on the advice of Mr Fraser after a meeting the then CEO and the human resources manager.

"We sat down with Ian and he was adamant the board would not accept $450,000 in the prevailing climate. We discussed $400,000 and in the end $350,000 was his decision as one the board would not refuse.

"The reasoning was that if we put the figure of $450,000 to the board it would be rejected and that would imperil further negotiations."

Mr Ralston said he wanted Wood to stay on. She had been paid $450,000 initially because of the risk in being part of a new show.

"I accepted that as a fair premium for that year, because we were in uncharted waters and if the programme failed Susan Wood's career would have been in tatters and I accepted that."

However, that had changed and Wood's future on Close Up was more secure.

Wood, who has worked for TVNZ for 20 years, argued she had presided over strong ratings for Close Up, had worked hard and was "gutted" to be offered a pay cut of $100,000.

Her salary demands for 2005 were reasonable in light of other salaries, such as John Campbell's, Bailey's and Holmes' $750,000 before he quit TVNZ.

She said Holmes had left his expense claims behind, "so being a journalist I looked through them, and they were considerable".

Wood maintained she was the "least risky option" for TVNZ to take in the 7pm slot as she had filled in for Holmes and ratings had not suffered.

"I wrongly believed no one would get the kind of money that Paul Holmes had and a few weeks later Judy's salary became public and I couldn't quite believe what I had signed up for."

She was then gutted and almost unable to go air after Mr Ralston tabled a new lower offer for a second year in the prime-time role.

Wood said she felt she was a victim of the backlash at the salaries that had created the "culture of extravagance" image of TVNZ.

Mr Ralston said the offer of permanent employment would give Ms Wood security and reassurance for her future.

He wanted her to stay on. "All the way through I've tried to give Susan as much support and encouragement as possible. I want a long-term relationship. She does too.

"We've ended up in a pay dispute but that doesn't mean we don't want to work together."

Wood's lawyer, Malcolm Crotty, asked the authority for a declaration that the fixed-term contract she was on did not comply with the law and that TVNZ's attempts to cut her salary were unjustifiable.

He said her distress had been "severe" and compensation should be at the "high end of the scale".

TVNZ lawyer Rob Towner said the new offer was reasonable as the situation had changed since a fixed-term contract was offered while the network saw how Close Up would fare. Although the reasons for a fixed term were not specified in the agreement, he said, both sides were well aware of them and that it was clear the salary was only for 2005 and could not be relied on to continue.