Thousands of caregivers will be invited to join a class action in the wake of a court judgement clearing the way for a challenge on the basis of gender discrimination, Service and Food Workers' Union national secretary John Ryall says.
The Employment Court at Auckland last week accepted the argument carers' wages could be compared with those in other occupations in terms of whether they constituted gender discrimination.
Provided there was no appeal in the next three weeks, the union would be able to identify occupations it considered suitable for comparison.
The parties had been ordered by the court to talk to decide how to resolve the issue.
Ultimately, there would be no solution until the Government got involved, Mr Ryall said, but so far it had declined to, despite being invited to give evidence.
Carers en masse would be asked to join the original carer, Kristine Bartlett, whose case the union brought.
''We'll be going out to get all caregivers to give us authority to file cases on their behalf.''
This included non-union as well as union members - up to about 25,000 people.
Aged Care Association chief executive Martin Taylor, speaking on behalf of Terranova Homes, said a decision on whether to appeal had not been reached and the judgement was being studied.
Mr Taylor said it was important to remember the decision cleared the way for a full case, so the matter was not ''done and dusted''.
''These are preliminary legal questions that needed to be settled before the full court case was heard.''
Mr Taylor said the industry had been fighting for higher pay for carers but he was concerned the legal route was not appropriate.
''Will this achieve [more funding], or will it just create a crisis?''About half the country's aged care facilities would be insolvent if they had to lift wages by about $2.50 an hour, he said.
''The aged care sector as a whole doesn't pay a living wage, because we're not funded to pay a living wage.''
University of Otago public law specialist Prof Andrew Geddis said the decision was a great success for the union, and he expected it to be appealed.
He would not be surprised if a higher court believed the Employment Court got a ''bit excited'' in its interpretation of the Equal Pay Act, and ruled against the union.
If nothing else though, it put the plight of carers squarely in the public spotlight, he said.
It was now more widely known they could work for many years in the same job and be paid little more than the minimum wage.
