The aged care gender pay case may be about to take a major turn, as the Government wants to settle out of court.
In an Official Information Act response to the Otago Daily Times, a senior adviser for Health Minister Dr Jonathan Coleman said the Government had decided to enter negotiations over the Kristine Bartlett case to ''seek a satisfactory resolution to the case outside of the court process''.
It could mean the Service and Food Workers' Union can avoid a lengthy and complicated case and effect a pay rise for caregivers.
Dunedin caregivers who are among thousands signed up to join Ms Bartlett's case said yesterday they want a settlement, as their work has been under-valued long enough.
Caregiver Kerri White said she had been a carer for about 30 years in different jobs, and was paid just over $15.40.
The minimum wage is $14.75.
The premise of the case is that caregivers are underpaid because the sector is female-dominated.
The case made history last year when the Court of Appeal judgement found the Equal Pay Act could be used to compare occupations to make a finding of gender-based unfairness.
SFWU national secretary John Ryall said yesterday the Government's decision was ''good news'', but the union had not been formally advised of a change.
It wanted more information about the Government's intention and how it wanted to proceed.
''I wouldn't declare victory just yet.
''There's been murmurs about this for some time.
''We're very pleased if the Government's going to move in that direction.''
The union has had some big wins for caregivers in recent years, securing payment for sleepover shifts and travel time, but this case was much bigger with far-reaching implications, he said.
''This is the first case since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1972 which has highlighted the fact that some sectors are underpaid because there's a predominance of women.
''The reason this is a government problem is the Government provides the funding to these providers who employ these women.''
Prof Andrew Geddis, a University of Otago public law specialist, said the case had established that the Equal Pay Act could be used to compare pay rates between occupations, and not just within occupations.
But no finding had been made on whether caregivers are underpaid because of gender, and that would be hard to demonstrate.
''From the union's point of view ... do you want to go for a court case that might establish a precedent, which might be good or bad?''If you lose, that's not great.
''You've got real flesh and blood people who probably would like a pay rise now, rather than waiting however many years this gets dragged all the way through the Supreme Court.''
Settling the case might be in the Government's interests too, he suggested.
''The last thing the Government wants is a really strong court case that finds these people have been discriminated against because of their gender and therefore the Government is obligated to pay them more.''
Ms White, a caregiver, said she did not want to see the case ''drag on'' for years.
She said most people had no idea what the job involved.
Tasks included counselling, giving medication, and overseeing dialysis and diabetes management.
Experienced carers held qualifications and were senior staff in their organisations, she said.
The case
• Instigated by Lower Hutt caregiver Kristine Bartlett and Service and Food Workers' Union.
• Court of Appeal found low pay might constitute gender discrimination.
• Next step was finding a male-dominated job and proving it was a valid comparison.
• About 2500 caregivers joined the case, lodging their names with the Employment Relations Authority.
