The first ruling on the new partial strike deduction rules, and it split the full court
Employers can warn staff of pay cuts before a partial strike begins, a full Employment Court held on 30 June 2026, Judge Holden writing.
The ruling was the first time the Court has examined the lawfulness of pay deductions for partial strikes since new provisions entered the Employment Relations Act 2000 on 1 July 2025. The Chief Judge convened a full Court because the issue was considered important.
The case grew out of bargaining between the union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, and the Ministry of Education over collective agreements covering service managers and field staff. Field staff include psychologists, speech language therapists and behaviour support specialists who work with students who have learning support needs.
In July 2025 the union served notices of partial strike action, banning work on any new cases along with caps on daily and weekly hours. In response, the Ministry told the union it would apply a 10 per cent deduction to the pay of striking employees. The Ministry gave that notice on 21 July 2025, before the strike started on 23 July.
NZEI argued the deductions were unlawful because, in its view, the relevant notice provision could only be used once a strike was underway and employees were actually party to it. Notice given in advance, the union said, was invalid. The Ministry countered that the law let it choose how and when to give notice, and that early notice served the purpose of telling workers promptly about the financial impact of striking.
The majority, Judge Holden writing for herself and Judge Smith, sided with the Ministry. They found the notice provisions offered alternative methods for giving notice rather than fixing a particular time, and that reading a timing restriction into the section was unjustified. The judges wrote: "It would add a layer to the section that is simply not present."
The majority also rejected the union's second argument, that the Ministry could not properly identify who was striking. It found that, starting from the strike notices, the Ministry could refine the group using leave records and reports from service managers, and said the Ministry could not be criticised for the approach it took. On the third issue, the majority found the Ministry's responses to the union's requests for information were lawful and appropriate, and that the union had the material it sought by the time of the hearing.
Judge Doyle disagreed on one point. She read the notice provision as allowing a single notice to the union only once a strike had begun, meaning notice given beforehand did not comply. On that reading she said "the specified pay deductions made by the Secretary were unlawful". She agreed with the majority on the other two issues.
By majority, the Court held the Ministry had complied with the notice requirements and that the deductions were validly made. The judges noted that if union members continue to consider deductions were incorrectly taken from their pay, the dispute resolution steps in the Act should now be followed.
