Arbitration Court’s record on Equal Pay Act slated

Press, 16 April 1986, Page 38

Arbitration Court’s record on Equal Pay Act slated

PA Wellington The responsibility for overseeing equal pay should be removed from the Arbitration Court, according to Ms Elizabeth Orr, an equal pay researcher.

New equal pay legislation was needed, but no law changes could be expected to work satisfactorily while the Arbitration Court retained the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of equal pay, Ms Orr said in Wellington recently. She is the first chairwoman of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Women and a member of equal pay review committees.

Ms Orr said the Labour Department appeared to have decided after 1979 there was little point in taking equal pay cases to the Court.

The Court was left in peace until the Clerical Workers Union brought a case in February. Ms Orr said the Arbitration Court’s decision both disclosed weakness in the Equal Pay Act and proved the unsuitability of the Court to supervise and

interpret equal pay legislation.

The Court ruled it could not rule on a claim by the union based on the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Under this concept women’s pay rates are compared with those of men even if the work involved is, on the surface, quite dissimilar. Ms Orr said the Arbitration Court had taken a narrow view of the act, apparently considering it only applied where both men and women were employed. She said that in 13 years overseeing the act, the Court had failed to provide principles or guidelines and gave only minimal guidance when asked for assistance. “It did not find discrimination in any of the four cases brought on behalf of individual women, three of these being brought by inspectors of the Labour Department,” Ms Orr said.

The Court had interpreted the central section of the act in such a way as to render the legislation more or less unworkable.