The deinstitutionalisation of care for the intellectually disabled in this country - moved during the 1980s and beyond from large "homes" where they were cared for by staff employed under public service conditions into small groups in community houses - was considered socially desirable and also provided fiscal benefits.
It was cheaper to provide for people in small numbers in semi-flatting arrangements than it was to meet the overheads of large "mental health" institutions.
Last July, the Employment Court issued a judgement which sent shockwaves through the organisations which grew up around the need to provide such care as was now required. Should it withstand the scrutiny of the higher courts, it suggests that, as a society, we have been underfunding the sector; and that various care providers may now be liable for ruinous back-pay claims.
Last week, in anticipation of the difficulties they will face should the Court of Appeal uphold the Employment Court's decision, Idea Services and Timata Hou (wholly owned subsidiaries of IHC New Zealand and registered charities funded by the health and social development ministries) requested they be put into statutory management.
Commerce Minister Simon Power duly acceded to the request.
Idea Services cares for almost 5000 people, of whom 3000 are in residential care.
Timata Hou, a residential rehabilitation service, cares for 67 people.
Last year's decision found against the IHC, which had opposed payment of "sleepover" hours for non-residential carers.
The court judgement said time spent by carers sleeping over constituted "work" and therefore, under section 6 of the Minimum Wages Act, a minimum of $12.50 should be paid for every hour of the sleepover instead of a shift allowance of about $30.
As a result of the decision, it is estimated that the cost of sleepover back pay could amount to between $400 million-$500 million for the past five years - and raise the ongoing cost of the services by about $60 million-$70 million a year.
The decision, says Health Minister Tony Ryall, has "very significant implications" for the whole economy.
It also has the potential to impact profoundly on the future shape of mental-health care in this country, and on the way in which numerous other "care sector" operations, including for the elderly, are run.
The Employment Court decision goes to the Court of Appeal on October 28.
Such is its import, it is suggested by legal commentators that thereafter it may well find its way to the Supreme Court.
Thus it would be premature to suggest the matter is settled, but there is much in the lower court's decision that is common sense.
Idea Services had argued that any time the carer was asleep during the sleepover could not be said to be "work".
The court considered that proposition in the context of the constraints on the employee during sleepovers, his responsibilities, and the benefit to the employer of his being in the home, whether asleep or not.
It accepted that while engaged on sleepovers, the employee could engage in only a very limited range of activities, could not socialise or carry on normal family life, had limited privacy and did not have access to the comforts and resources of his home.
It considered that the employee also had important and "continuous" responsibilities relating to the care and security of the residents throughout and that without his presence the company would be in breach of its obligations to operate the residence in an appropriate manner.
Accordingly, it found in favour of the employee.
Looking after the intellectually disabled, the elderly and the infirm is a challenging role that requires patience and compassion.
The sector attracts many big-hearted individuals with an enhanced sense of "duty" and social responsibility.
That such employees should be expected to shoulder the burden of care for residents and grab a bit of shuteye in between for the princely sum of between $3 and $4 an hour for the duration of their sleepovers seems at best an anomaly and at worst exploitative.
The court's decision does raise difficult issues about the future funding of care arrangements - and may eventually lead to their reconfiguration - but it also brings into sharp relief the woeful wages and conditions that have existed for care workers entrusted to carry out some our most demanding and sensitive social services.
