The union argued workers had been promised flexibility only to have the “rug pulled from under them”
ACC is facing a potential investigation by the Commerce Commission after the Public Service Association (PSA) accused it of misleading job applicants about flexible working arrangements in its recruitment advertising.
The union has asked the Commission to probe whether ACC breached the Fair Trading Act by advertising roles that promised employees could work from home up to three days a week, then moving to reduce that entitlement to two days.
According to the PSA, ACC promoted remote working as a key benefit in job advertisements that ran from June 2023 until at least July 2025. Those ads explicitly stated that staff could work from home for up to three days a week.
However, in October this year ACC informed staff that from 1 December they would be required in the office three days a week – effectively cutting the work-from-home option back to two days.
The PSA argues that this represents a clear mismatch between what was advertised and what ACC subsequently sought to implement.
"ACC deliberately advertised flexible work arrangements to attract staff, and is now looking to break that promise - this is exactly the kind of misleading conduct the Fair Trading Act is designed to prevent," said Fleur Fitzsimons, national secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.
Fitzsimons said many workers had structured their lives around the flexibility ACC appeared to offer.
"Workers made major life decisions - resigning from jobs, relocating, arranging childcare - based on ACC's advertised working conditions. Many feel deceived and betrayed with the proposed change to its remote working policy,” she said.
The union represents around 1,200 ACC employees, many of whom took part in a large-scale strike in October. That industrial action followed a damning review of ACC’s culture and came amid what the PSA describes as “rock-bottom morale”.
The PSA has already taken legal steps over the proposed changes to remote working, filing action with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
Following that move, ACC backed away from its initial timetable, agreeing to pause the policy shift and consult with staff, with any implementation now delayed until early next year.
While the union has welcomed the decision to consult, it says the underlying proposal has not changed.
"While we welcome ACC's decision to finally consult staff, the consultation proposal is the same and doesn't change the fact that they misled job applicants about working conditions in the first place," Fitzsimons said.
Alongside the Commerce Commission complaint, the PSA remains in facilitated bargaining with ACC via the ERA over a new collective agreement for its members.
"We hope the decision to consult workers over the remote working policy marks a turning point - but the Commerce Commission still needs to determine whether laws were broken when ACC advertised working conditions they failed to honour.”
Fair Trading Act in the spotlight
At the heart of the PSA’s complaint is section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, which deals specifically with misleading conduct relating to employment.
The section states: “No person shall, in relation to employment that is, or is to be, or may be offered by that person or any other person, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive, as to the availability, nature, terms or conditions, or any other matter relating to that employment."
The PSA said that by heavily promoting remote work as a central benefit – and then seeking to scale it back – ACC may have breached this provision.
"The Commerce Commission needs to investigate whether ACC breached the Fair Trading Act, which applies to employment advertising. Job seekers deserve accurate information about working conditions, which employers are obliged to honour,” added Fitzsimons.
The dispute highlights the growing importance of flexible work as a factor in recruitment and retention, and the legal risks for employers that fail to live up to what they promote in job ads.
For employees, the case underscores that employment advertising is not just marketing material but can carry legal weight if it is found to be misleading about key terms and conditions.
The Commerce Commission will now be asked to consider whether ACC’s conduct crossed that line, while ACC’s staff await both the outcome of consultation on future working arrangements and a broader settlement over pay and conditions.
