NZ Herald editorial: Pay equity bill tackles the hard task at last

Editorial

Celebrations had barely concluded in trade union circles after the rest home carers' settlement last week when the taste of victory turned sour. A day after the "historic" $2 billion wage increase, given in the name of pay equity, the Government produced a draft bill that, unions say, will severely restrict pay equity claims in future.

The central issue is the "comparator" occupations women may use to claim their job is underpaid by comparison with one performed by men. Comparisons of the demands of different jobs are, of course, subjective and invidious. The task of deciding the criteria for selection of comparable occupations for gender equity purposes was deferred by the courts that considered the test case brought in the name of rest home carer Kristine Bartlett.

The case succeeded in gaining rulings by the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal that the Equal Pay Act 1972 did not just require women to be paid the same rate as men for doing the same job, it also meant jobs done predominantly by women should be the same as comparable jobs done predominantly by men. However, the Court of Appeal said the question of how comparable worth might be established was one for the Employment Court.

The Government intervened at that point, not wanting the courts to write a new formula for wage fixing that could have introduce rigidities across much of the economy. Instead, the Government set up a joint working group with unions and business representatives to try to agree on how pay comparisons might be made. The task largely eluded the working group too.

The Government has gone ahead and settled the Bartlett case with perhaps the highest pay rise in New Zealand history but the announcement of the settlement has thrown no light on how a fair wage for residential caregivers was calculated. The figure may have been based simply on the high public appreciation of the work caregivers do and the amount the industry's primary funder, the Government, was willing to pay.

The legislation announced the next day lays down a far more rigorous test for future pay equity claims. Women making a claim will need to find a comparator within their employer's business. Only if none exist, can the women look for a comparator in similar businesses. If none of those exist, they must look for an appropriate comparator in the same industry or sector. Comparators from a different industry or sector can be selected only if none have been found by that point.

The Council of Trade Unions has complained that this was not the way comparisons aided negotiations in the Bartlett case. Its president, Richard Wagstaff, says, "Women need to be able to select the most appropriate comparator for their particular role regardless of who their employer happens to be."

The intention of the bill is clear: if at all possible pay equity claims must be resolved within the workplace and, failing that, within the industry. It is not to restore wider wage relativities, as last week's union celebrants clearly envisaged. The argument over pay equity's practicality is just beginning.