Jason Walls: ZB political editor on the PSA winning their case against the Ministry of Education

The PSA has won a case against the Ministry of Education, calling it a victory for the dignity and fair treatment of workers.

The union filed proceedings at the Employment Relations Authority, claiming the collective agreement wasn't met relating to the Government's spending cuts - putting hundreds of roles on the line.

ZB political editor Jason Walls says the Ministry has 28 days to file an appeal to the Employment Court.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
News talks, it'd be political leader to Jason Walls is
with us this afternoon. Hi, Jason, Good afternoon, Jack. So
the PSA has won its case against the Ministry of Education.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Indeed it has, and it was very happy about that.
They sent out a press release less than an hour
ago touting that they had basically claiming victory on this one.
The union had filed an Employment Relations Authority proceedings because
of what it said was the ministry's failure to comply
with the collective Agreement in relation to job losses forced
by the government's spending cuts. And unless you've lived under

(00:30):
a rock, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about in
terms of those spending cuts, job cuts across the public
service agency, every single ministry, and of course the Ministry
of Education was not exempt to this. The authority found
that the PSA's interpretation of the collective Agreement with the
Ministry staff had not been complied with by the Ministry,

(00:50):
and the PSA says there was no attempt to engage
with the PSA as an active participant in the change. Now,
that's despite what the ministry said. The Ministry said that
it had engaged in those conversations, but the Employment Relations
Authority has ruled otherwise. In a statement, the PSA said
the authority also agreed with the PSA's position that the

(01:11):
Ministry was required to adopt a case by case approach
to the outcome outcomes for individuals. So this means that
considering matters such as retraining, leave without pay, early retirement severance,
and assisting people into other work for each individual. So
the Ministry now has twenty eight days to file and
appeal to the Employment Court. This is pretty major, as

(01:32):
the Ministry has previously said if the legal action was successful,
it would have to start the job cutting process all
over again. Quote. If the authority finds in favor of
the PSA, this is what the Ministry said at the
time when the proceedings started. We expect that the Authority
would require the Ministry to pause all change processes. Further
discussions with the PSA would follow with the aim of

(01:55):
reaching agreements on specific changes. They went on to say
that this may lead to new amendment proposals that may
require further consultation before decisions are made in action. So
it's already paused laying off staff while this legal action happened.
But the ministry said, no matter what happens, it would
still be cutting off, it would still be cutting staff.

(02:15):
They said that they'd made every effort to find the
money outside of the reductions to head counts. However, the
savings required to meet budget twenty four committed commitments are
greater than what we can do without reducing staff numbers.
So what does this mean. It means that everything is
going to get a lot more expensive. I would say
expect more offers of voluntary redundancies and more legal battles

(02:38):
as we go forward. And there's also the question of precedents,
because we do know that this is not the only
ministry that was grappling against the government's cuts.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Jason both Nikola Willis's associate Finance ministers have committed somewhat
of a cardinalson what have they done.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Indeed, in short, they've undermined the independence of the Reserve Bank,
which is what ministers are not allowed to do under
any circum stances. The Reserve Bank sets interest rates based
on its read of the economy, so it's deliberately keeping
itself at arm's length from ministers because they shouldn't be
getting involved, as it could be perceived that they're politically meddling,

(03:13):
but that's all out the window for now. First with
Associate Minister, Finance Minister and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour,
who after yesterday's three point three percent inflation number was released,
he was asked the obvious question by reporters, should the
Reserve Bank cut interest rates? Here's what he said, Well,
I can't tell the Reserve Bank governor what to do,
but you don't belave an economics degree to see.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
People are hurting and flesh is going down fast and
relief is required.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
So he might argue that that was not an explicit
instruction saying that relief is required is pretty I would
say it's pretty close to being given directions. If it's
not explicitly saying it, it is getting pretty close to
the line. But there was absolutely no ambiguity around what
the other Associate Finance Minister said, Shane Jones, when he
spoke to the country earlier today.

Speaker 3 (04:01):
Of course we need to reduce the cost of money. Look,
I remember surviving through the global financial crisis that was
two thousand and eight twenty ten. My family had a
whole host of interests in economic enterprises. I think the
circumstances facing a lot of regional New Zealand enterprises are
worse now than they were back in the global financial crisis,

(04:23):
and sadly, they're not seeing a monetary impulse coming from
the Reserve Bank. We're seeing the opposite.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
So it's pretty unambiguous there in terms of what his
thoughts off in terms of what should happen. As I understand,
let's stand it. Nikola Willis is also keen to see
the Reserve Bank cut the ocr but she hasn't come
out and said that. I mean yet, no products are
there for the Will's most obvious statement. But the thing is,
she hasn't come out explicitly and said it should happen
because it would be improper. So, you know, do I

(04:51):
think that Willis do I think that Jones and Seymour's
urging of the Reserve Bank or their comments will change
their mind. I think they're probably already in a position
where they're thinking of doing it anyway, and I think
it probably might happen earlier this year. But it's pretty
improper for them to do what they've done. But I
don't think it's ultimately going to change much.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah, I mean, let's be honest though, Jason, I mean
the Reserve Bank are educated adults. Surely that the Monetary
Policy Committee can actually say yes. Of course politicians watase
he cuts to the OCE era. But actually we're going
to make decisions independent of what they want. That's the
whole purpose. Come like judges do when it comes to sentencing.
Surely we have to put a bit of stock in
these people's expertise. But thank you very much for your time.

(05:30):
That is News talks 'DB Political editor Jason Walls. For
more from Hither Duplicy Allen Drive. Listen live to News
Talks 'DB from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio