Hundreds of public sector workers angry at Govt's 'appalling' three-year extension to pay freeze

Wednesday, 5 May 2021

The pay freeze will apply to those earning $100,000 or more a year, while pay increases for those earning under $60,000 will be prioritised. (First published May 2021)

Hundreds of workers have reacted with anger at the extension of the public service pay freeze, says the union that represents them.

The Government on Wednesday announced a three-year extension of a 12-month freeze on pay rises for those earning more than $100,000, with those on $60,000 and above needing select circumstances, including “modest progression within a band”, to justify any increase.

That restraint will not extend to those earning less than $60,000, with pay rises to that group “prioritised”. The freeze will be reviewed in mid-2023.

Public Service Minister Chris Hipkins said the initiative was technically a “guidance” for the public sector.

**READ MORE:

Erin Polaczuk says members are calling the freeze “unfair, disrespectful and appalling”. (File photo)

* Government announces three more years of pay restraint for public servants

* Regional hubs won't be far if Labour is re-elected, Hipkins says

* State Services Minister Chris Hipkins exploring 'regional hub' options for Government departments

* State sector pay rates 'have got completely out of control'

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said it was needed to keep a lid on public debt.

But the Public Service Association (PSA) said it was unlikely to keep a lid on an angry workforce looking at the prospect of no real wage increases for up to four years.

The union said those workers included many of the essential, frontline staff who had played key roles in helping the country overcome Covid-19, including border and MIQ personnel, and quarantine and immigration officers.

The guidance applies across the public sector, from ministries to DHBs, through to independent agencies like the police.

Robertson said police, the defence force and public media companies would have slightly more leeway.

They must “have regard to” the pay freeze, he said, while the rest of the public sector “must give effect to” the changes.

But PSA National Secretary Erin Polaczuk said hundreds of workers “had emailed us to say how unfair, disrespectful and appalling they think this is”.

Health workers at the frontline of the country’s Covid-19 response are among those facing a four-year public-sector pay freeze.

The union would be speaking with members about their response.

“This is just the beginning … we’re going to fight as hard as ever to improve pay and conditions for our members,” Polaczuk said.

She declined to comment on whether industrial action could be part of that response.

The union has about 80,000 members, with the median wage at $59,000, which meant the freeze could affect tens of thousands of staff.

Polaczuk said the freeze could have a “chilling” effect beyond the public service.

“Local government employers are not covered by this policy, but they often follow the lead of central government when bargaining,” she said.

“Private sector employers may also feel more confident restricting wage increases. It’s bad news for everyone, and it needs to be challenged.”

Legal sources spoken to by Stuff said the freeze might well be challenged, because of a possible breach of the Public Service Act 2020.

The legislation deemed a “good employer” as one “who operates an employment policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment”.

That could include the allocation of pay.

PSA solicitor Catherine McNamara said employers were required to enter into collective negotiations in good faith.

“It is our view the Government cannot pre-determine this or exempt the employers it funds from their good faith obligations simply by issuing a workforce order.

“All employers, including government employers, are required to comply with obligations under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Government is not above the law and cannot exempt itself from this.”