There are lots of ways that by working together in a union, NZEI Te Riu Roa members influence change to benefit our working lives and the tamariki we work with. Pay equity was one of our key tools in recent years, but law changes rushed through in May 2025 have changed this.
The Equal Pay Amendment bill has been designed to make it impossible for both teachers, and our wide range of members, to achieve pay equity. Let's break down the amendments.
Barriers to creating a claim
There is a much higher bar to get to the first step of the pay equity claim process. To raise a claim, unions now have to prove the case has 'merit', and the employer has to agree. This means producing a tomb of evidence of undervaluation and discrimination. Previously, unions did not have to provide this evidence up front and instead this would be done together with the employer at the assessment stage.
In the past, to get the claim to the assessment stage, unions had to set out why the case was 'arguable', which entailed a brief document detailing the reasons there could be a case for pay equity for the group.
The amendment has lifted the requirement that the role is 60% female-dominated to 70%. This change could narrow the scope of any future teachers' claim, as secondary teachers and principals do not meet this threshold.
There is also a requirement to prove at the outset that all work covered by the claim is the same or substantially similar to the comparator role. This could significantly alter the make-up of the teachers' claim.
Any new iteration of the claim could look very different and exclude a lot of teachers who are currently included.
Power of employers
Under the new law, the employer (in most of our claims, the Ministry of Education) has almost full control over key decisions within the pay equity process. Once a union provides the evidence for 'merit', the new law means the employer can immediately disagree with the proposal and throw the claim out. In fact, employers can halt the pay equity claim at any stage of the process and the claim ends. To get it back on track, the union would need to go to court to overturn this decision. Entering into a court dispute would likely extend the pay equity process by years, and there could be multiple court disputes over the timeline of just one claim.
The law change creates a significant shift in the working relationship between union and employer. Previously, employers and unions worked together to gather evidence for the claim. If there was a disagreement, they would attempt to work it out together, rather than the employer having the ability to end the whole claim and the onus being on the union to take the case to court.
A further key change is that employers can easily opt out of being part of a pay equity claim if there are multiple employers involved. They can opt out for no reason, whereas beforehand they would have to give genuine reasons. This is significant for early childhood education teachers where there are hundreds of employers. It would mean, in theory, there could be hundreds of pay equity claims, one with each employer, which would be extremely inefficient and likely unworkable.
Comparators
The amendment significantly changes the way in which comparators are chosen. Now, comparators can only be chosen from male-dominated professions that are employed by the same or similar employer. If none are available, then a comparator must be chosen from within the same industry or sector. Excluding comparators from non-education sectors effectively shuts down any claims in education because there are no comparable male-dominated jobs in the sector.
Reviews clause removed
Review clauses can no longer be included in a settlement. This means if the pay gap reopens, groups must raise a whole new claim. However, they are banned from doing this until 10 years have passed since their existing claim was settled.