The union alleges breaches of the collective agreement and the duty of good faith. The Solicitor-General has denied breaching either, and the Authority has made no findings.
The Public Service Association has lodged proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority against Solicitor-General Anna Adams KC. The dispute concerns a proposed restructure of Crown Law’s leadership team.
The PSA’s Statement of Problem, provided to LawFuel and dated 2 November, sets out the union’s case. Its contents are one party’s allegations and have not been tested and records that Adams replied on 23 October that she had not breached the collective agreement or her good faith obligations. Stuff has reported that her office declined to comment further while the restructure process is under way.
Adams became Solicitor-General on 11 May. The filing says she commissioned a Performance Improvement Review of Crown Law in June which was released publicly on 24 September, and she then released a response, Crown Law 2030, at the same time.
The leadership proposal went to staff on 13 October. According to the filing, it would disestablish two Deputy Solicitor-General roles, Office of the Attorney-General and Criminal. Three new roles would replace them: Law Officer and Cabinet, Government Legal System, and Prosecution Advocacy.
Consultation
The filing says staff had from 13 to 23 October, nine working days, to respond to the 30-page document.
The PSA claim this as the shortest public sector consultation period in the last three years, and says many staff were in court or preparing for hearings.
It says a request to extend the deadline to 27 October was declined and that no cogent reason was given for the timeframe. The PSA relies on clause 14 of the collective agreement, which provides that consultation on significant change will be early, ongoing, honest, timely and genuine.
The union says it did not receive the proposal until it went to all staff.
The filing says Adams refused requests to withdraw the proposal, and refused to meet except about “broader relationship issues”.
Who is affected
The filing says the Solicitor General has repeatedly maintained that only tier two positions are directly affected and in an email on 29 October she accepted that the deputies’ executive assistants were also directly affected, but said the proposal affects four employees out of 200.
The PSA disputes the claim, calling the proposal a significant organisational redesign that reorganises the work of most of its members, because teams are structured around deputies who exercise constitutional functions.
It also says a Crown Law FAQ of 20 October acknowledged that the proposal envisages changes to the work and structure of teams reporting to the leadership team.
The filing records that Adams described four phases of work, with the leadership proposal as phase two and a change to the operating model as phase three. The PSA calls that distinction artificial, and says the leadership decisions would predetermine later changes to team structures to a significant extent.
Prosecutorial independence
The PSA alleges the change would diffuse the current Deputy Solicitor-General Criminal role across multiple portfolios, including those held by deputies who represent government ministers in litigation. It says this risks weakening the perception that prosecutorial independence is being maintained.
The filing says Crown Law’s Criminal Team made a submission on 23 October stating that the constitutional need for prosecutorial independence had not been adequately considered. According to the filing, the team sought more time, reconsideration of the proposed separation of appellate criminal advocacy from prosecution stewardship, and the testing of less disruptive options.
The review itself, which the PSA attached to its filing, said Law Officer functions are currently diffused across multiple deputy portfolios. It said there was an opportunity to move the system leadership function for public prosecutions to a new Law Officer and Government Legal System group.
The 15 October email
The filing says Adams sent all staff a five-page email on the evening of 15 October. It says she expressed thanks to those who had given feedback, and asked that feedback be provided in a manner that “supports the Office and me as Solicitor General”.
The PSA alleges the email also aggressively criticised employees with incorrect allegations of misconduct, including hostility, verbal aggression and “prosecutorial-style cross-examination”, and threatened to hold staff accountable. It says the email had a “chilling effect” on staff questions.
According to the filing, staff were told the next day that the following week’s sessions would be on Teams rather than in person, last 30 minutes rather than an hour, and focus on feedback rather than questions.
It records Crown Law’s Director for Organisational Change as saying staff were still welcome to raise questions, and that the change was intended to make sessions accessible and focused on the substance of the proposal.
The 20 October meeting
The PSA’s second issue concerns a session on 20 October. According to the filing, PSA National Sector Leader Katie Rowsell (pictured) introduced herself beforehand. Adams asked whether she was a Crown Law staff member, and Rowsell said she was from the PSA. Adams said the meeting was for staff only and that she needed to leave.
Rowsell said she was there to represent staff and that members had asked her to attend. The filing says Adams repeated the demand, Rowsell asked whether she was being kicked out, Adams confirmed she was and she left.
The PSA says its delegates told Adams beforehand that Ms Rowsell would attend. The filing records Adams’ claim that no notice was given to Crown Law. The union alleges the removal breached the collective agreement and good faith obligations.
Challenges to the review
The filing says Crown Law’s Criminal Group sent Adams a memorandum on 12 October raising concerns about the accuracy of aspects of the review. According to the filing, the memorandum said conclusions appeared to be based on a small number of interviews, and that the review’s use of “winning” and “losing” was inconsistent with the Prosecution Guidelines and prosecutors’ duties.
Māori staff and Treaty work
The PSA says there was no consultation or prior notice of the review in relation to kaimahi Māori, although the filing also records that all staff were told of it on 19 June. It says the proposal did not mention Māori staff, mentioned Te Tiriti o Waitangi once, and did not identify where the Treaty and human rights teams’ work would sit. It cites collective agreement commitments on Te Tiriti and on involving Māori employees.
Orders sought
The PSA is seeking determinations that the Solicitor General breached the collective agreement, including its relationship obligations, and the duty of good faith. It also seeks compliance orders requiring compliance before decisions are made on the proposal, together with costs. The filing does not seek damages or Adams’ removal.
The parties have not attended mediation. The PSA seeks an urgent time-bound direction and says it will apply for a priority fixture if the matter does not settle.
