P.S.A. Application On Equal Pay

Press, Volume C, Issue 29502, 2 May 1961, Page 14

P.S.A. Application On Equal Pay

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 1. An application by the Public Service Association for an order under the Declaratory Judgments Act concerning equal pay in relation to “a comparatively small number” of Public Service employees has been dismissed by Mr Justice McCarthy. In a reserved judgment delivered in the Supreme Court at Wellington today, his Honour said there was a preferable procedure to the one adopted by the association.

The association sought, by originating summons, an order under the Declaratory Judgments Act determining whether the Public Service

commissioners were permitted by the terms of sections 17 and 22 of the Publie Service Act, 1912, “to differentiate in salary between applicants, and therefore holders of positions in the Public Service, where similar duties are to be performed, and are subsequently performed. such differentiation being based solely upon the sex of the officer.” The judgment said that the question, as drafted, seemed to apply to all public servants and raised the question of equal pay for equal service in respect of all divisions and classes of the Public Service. It might appear strange that the question was being asked, in view of the enactment by Parliament of the Government Service Equal Pay Act. 1960. and the participation of the plaintiff association in the inquiry held before the passing of that legislation. “As the hearing before me proceeded, it emerged that what the plaintiff association really requires is an answer limited to those employees in the general division of the Public Service who are not covered by an order made by the Government Service Tribunal, pursuant to section 8 of the Government Service Tribunal Act. 1948, or by a determination of the commissioners made under section 10a of that act.” the judgment said. "It was explained that as a result of this limitation, only a comparatively small number of employees can possibly be affected. It is desired to obtain the opinion of this Court, defining the rights of those persons in this particular, as it may be some time yet before the principles embodied in the Government Service Equal Pay Act. 1960, are implemented in terms of section 3 of that act.”

The substantial point at issue first appeared to have arisen from a vacancy for an industrial worker, male or female, for the Auckland Mental Hospital, advertised in the Public Service official circular of November 20. 1957. said the judgment. A maximum salary of £lOBO had been offered for r ales, and £935 for females. It was decided, however, not to proceed with an application because of the establishment by the then Government of the Equal Pay Implementation Committee in 1959. The dispute was “rekindled” as the result of an advertisement for positions for “four social workers (psychiatric) at Tokanui and Sunnyside hospitals,” appearing in the official circular of May 18, 1960. His Honour said he found it difficult. t on a preliminary view, to see how it could be contended that sections 17 and 22 of the Public Service Act, 1912. introduced any restriction upon the common law right of the commissioners, as employers of labour, to attach conditions, relating to sex or otherwise, to the terms of their contracts with their employees “It seems to me that it would be competent for any person affected by a fixing of salaries in breach of the statutory law to take appropriate proceedings either for damages or injunction or even, perhaps, for a declatory order, which proceedings would enable the very person injuriously affected to establish his or her rights, and which would be binding on the parties to the contract of employment.” his 'Honour said. “I have no doubt that that would he a preferable procedure to the one adopted in the case.”