Evidence Over Argument
6 May 2026
Context
Collective bargaining had come to a standstill. Management and the recognised trade unions had entered negotiations on salary increases — but before any resolution could be reached, the landscape shifted significantly. Statutory minimum salary revisions, subsequent relativity adjustments cascading through the pay structure, and Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increments collectively pushed wages upward by more than 40% over the period that followed the breakdown in negotiations.
With that cumulative movement already absorbed, the Unions were pressing for an additional retroactive salary increase of between 15% and 20% on top of what had already been applied. Management rejected the quantum outright. With no common ground in sight and negotiations exhausted, the dispute was referred to the Employment Relations Tribunal.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 62A of the Employment Relations Act, Prometheans was subsequently appointed as Salary Commissioner — an independent, evidence-based arbiter tasked with reviewing the positions of both parties and providing an objective assessment to inform resolution of the deadlock.
The Challenge
The appointment of a Salary Commissioner carries with it a clear mandate: set aside advocacy, interrogate the evidence, and let the data tell the story. That required building a credible analytical foundation across three dimensions — external competitiveness of actual pay levels and reward practice, historical pay movement relative to industry peers, and affordability in light of financial performance. Each presented its own obstacle.
On competitiveness, the company had no established benchmarking practice and had historically declined to participate in industry remuneration surveys when approached by peers. It had, in effect, opted out of the very data infrastructure that an engagement of this nature demands. With no existing participation record to draw from, composing a relevant and defensible peer group for a market survey would require building from scratch.
On the financial side, the challenge was structural: the majority of comparable companies in the industry were privately held, with no obligation to publish annual reports and no readily available financial disclosures. Assessing the company's affordability relative to peers could not rely on conventional sources — the financial picture of the industry was largely opaque.
Together, these constraints meant that every data point underpinning the analysis would need to be sourced, validated, and defended — not assumed.
The bar was not simply persuasiveness. The findings would need to be defendable before the Employment Relations Tribunal — grounded in evidence that could withstand legal scrutiny. This was not an exercise in splitting the difference between the opening positions of Management and Unions
Solution
The analysis was structured to answer the central question from both sides of the equation: what does the market say, and what can the business afford?
On market competitiveness, a customized market remuneration survey was conducted specifically for this engagement. Despite the absence of an existing benchmarking footprint, a relevant peer group was composed and participation secured from a credible cohort of comparable organisations. The survey established a reliable basis for assessing where the company's actual pay levels and reward practice stood relative to the market. The findings were unambiguous: compensation was broadly aligned with the peer group, and the cumulative increases already absorbed — exceeding 40% — had kept the company's pay positioning in step with the market. The Unions' case for an additional 15–20% retroactive increase was not supported by the competitiveness evidence.
On affordability, public records — including documents filed with the relevant registries and regulatory bodies wherever submissions had been made — were consulted to build a financially comparable peer set. This approach produced a verifiable basis for the affordability analysis. The findings showed that while the company's financial performance had improved post-pandemic, its recovery relative to peers remained incomplete. Key financial metrics trailed sector benchmarks, and modelling the requested increase against the company's cost base demonstrated that absorbing such a quantum would further compound financial strain — at a time when resilience was the strategic imperative, not additional fixed cost exposure.
Both dimensions pointed in the same direction: the company was paying competitively and lacked the capacity to meet the Unions' demands without material risk to its financial health.
The case was withdrawn before the Tribunal with both parties directed back to the negotiating table — this time with a more factual foundation from which to resume discussions constructively.