TerraNova’s loss highlights much bigger issues faced by aged care sector
Today TerraNova Homes and Care Limited lost their case in the Court of Appeal. This was an attempt to overturn the
Employment Court’s decision made in favour of the Service and Food Workers Union and aged care worker Kristine Bartlett,
with regards to equal pay. Subject to a Supreme Court Appeal, the case now returns to the Employment Court.
“We are disappointed about losing the appeal, but we do understand why the Union took this case. We all know caregiver
wages are too low and that their DHB counterparts are paid over $2 more per hour on average”, says Martin Taylor, CEO of
the NZ Aged Care Association (NZACA).
“It may seem that defending this case is inconsistent with supporting higher wages for caregivers, but that is simply
not the case. TerraNova Homes and the NZACA were forced to defend the case because no aged care provider can pay higher
wages unless the Government increases funding to the elderly for their care. Wages being increased without more
Government funding would cause a crisis in the sector,” says Taylor.
“The real issue here is that Government funding for aged care is simply not enough for providers to pay higher wages,
which is why the NZACA ran an awareness campaign to highlight the issue in this year’s election,” says Taylor.
Caregivers employed by District Health Boards (DHBs) earn a minimum of $17.50 per hour, while the other 30,500 employed
in residential aged care facilities earn on average only $15.31 per hour. All 650 residential aged care facilities
receive Government funding, as do the eight aged care facilities run by DHBs.
“The reality is this case is not about TerraNova Homes, and never has been. They are in the same position as everyone
else and have done nothing wrong,” says Taylor.
The decision to appeal to the Supreme Court will be considered following further analysis of the Court of Appeal’s
judgement.
NZACA has signed a litigation funding agreement with TerraNova. This means NZACA has been directing the litigation from
the defendant’s perspective since late 2013.
ENDS.