Susan Wood has won

Susan Wood has won her court case(judgement online here)and so she should have, because her contract did not make it clear why she should not get her contract renewed, or the pay reduced, particularly if she was performing. William Grantly Ralston - otherwise known as Bill, is not amused. The Board should be sacked as it was behind this failed action. When the present contract was offered to Wood, she was not given the opportunity to seek independant legal advice, which saw in her favour during the hearing. Now the board is using her fixed term contract, which expires at the end of the year, to cut $100,000 off her salary upon renewal. Had Wood sought a penalty for the lack of an opportunity to seek legal advice, she may have well been granted that instead of her failed personal grievance case.

In short, it means that although her contract is a fixed term, but her employment is not.

The board has come under pressure from Government to reduce salaries after Judy Bailey's $800,000 salary and Paul Holmes whopper salary. That is why the board decided on a $350,000 "ceiling" for salaries. So Ralston wanted to reduce Wood's salary and have her sign on the dotted line within three weeks or have her job junder threat. He told Wood :" its nothing personal. He's right, it was political.

Yet Ian Fraser's golden handshake is equivalent to Susan Woods current salary - and that was approved by the board. Secondly, despite TVNZ being an SOE, having a charter and paying a dividend to the Government, salaries are not paid for by the tax payer, they are paid for through advertising revenue.

Now both parties have to negotiate a salary before the end of the year.