Key Takeaways
- The Police Association launched its first “active and visible” pay‑bargaining campaign, “Repay the Risk,” despite police staff being legally barred from striking.
- Stickers bearing the campaign slogan have appeared inside Dunedin Central Police Station, prompting a directive from Southern District Commander Jason Guthrie to remove all non‑branded material from police assets.
- Guthrie’s email emphasized that while advocacy is permitted, it must not compromise professional standards, operational delivery, or the prohibition on picketing during work time.
- A memo from Assistant Commissioner Deployment Jeanette Park reinforced the ban on stickers, decals, ribbons, lanyards, and similar items on uniforms, vehicles, equipment, buildings, and noticeboards, citing the core value of professionalism.
- The Police Association rejected the characterization of the campaign as unprofessional, arguing that advocating for improved pay and conditions is a legitimate, professional union activity and warning of possible retaliation against members.
- Police have offered no further comment, but the stickers are to be removed immediately, and the association has signaled willingness to escalate the dispute if necessary, ahead of bargaining commencing on 1 May.
Introduction and Context
The recent developments at Dunedin Central Police Station illustrate a growing tension between police labor advocacy and institutional expectations of professionalism. On Wednesday, the Police Association announced that, for the first time in its 90‑year history, it was conducting a pay‑bargaining campaign that included “active and visible advocacy” from a workforce that is legally prohibited from striking. The campaign, dubbed “Repay the Risk,” coincides with the start of formal bargaining on 1 May. The appearance of campaign stickers inside a police station triggered an immediate response from senior police leadership, highlighting the clash between union activity and the police service’s strict branding and conduct policies.
Details of the “Repay the Risk” Campaign
The slogan “Repay the Risk” was chosen to underscore the association’s argument that officers deserve better remuneration for the hazards inherent in policing. Although police employees cannot strike, the Association sought to make its presence known through visible materials such as stickers, wristbands, and ribbons. The campaign’s timing—just before the 1 May bargaining deadline—was intended to exert pressure on management while remaining within the legal framework that permits advocacy but forbids industrial action. The Association framed the effort as a legitimate exercise of members’ rights to improve their terms and conditions.
Placement of Stickers in Dunedin Central Police Station
On Friday, RNZ received a photograph showing a “Repay the Risk” sticker affixed to a window inside the public area of Dunedin Central Police Station. An RNZ employee reported that at least four similar stickers were visible in the same location. The presence of these items in a space accessible to both officers and visitors prompted concern among senior police officials, who viewed the stickers as a breach of existing rules governing the display of non‑branded material on police property. The visibility of the stickers in a public‑facing area amplified the perception that the campaign was challenging the police service’s standards of uniformity and professionalism.
Southern District Commander Jason Guthrie’s Directive
In response to the sticker sightings, Southern District Commander Jason Guthrie emailed staff on the same day, clarifying the boundaries of permissible advocacy. He affirmed that employees could “advocate and engage with campaigning” but stressed that they must not “alter or diminish our professional standards throughout this period.” Consequently, any non‑branded police material—including stickers, ribbons, and similar items—was prohibited on uniforms, police assets such as equipment, vehicles, and buildings, and noticeboards. Guthrie also explicitly barred picketing during work hours, ordering that any existing stickers be removed “forthwith” and that no further instances be allowed to appear.
Guthrie’s Rationale
Guthrie framed his directive as an effort to balance legitimate union activity with the police service’s core obligations. He stated that the email was not intended to “limit or stop anyone supporting or advocating around the pay round,” but rather to ensure that such advocacy did not overlap with the organization’s commitment to professionalism or its operational delivery to communities. By insisting on the removal of campaign materials, Guthrie sought to preserve the perception of police as a neutral, trustworthy institution while still allowing officers to voice their concerns through approved channels.
Memo from Assistant Commissioner Deployment Jeanette Park
The following morning, a memo circulated on behalf of Assistant Commissioner Deployment Jeanette Park echoed Guthrie’s position. The memo recalled that police had always “positively engaged” with service organisations and had a “long history” of supporting staff in advocating their position, noting that this stance remained unchanged. Park emphasized that one of the police service’s core values—professionalism—required officers to “look the part, be the part,” which necessitated maintaining standards that foster public trust and confidence. Consequently, she reiterated that stickers, decals, ribbons, clasps, lanyards, or any other non‑branded police material were forbidden on uniforms, police vehicles, equipment, buildings, office spaces, and noticeboards.
Police Association’s Response
The Police Association swiftly responded, characterizing the memo as an “attempt to intimidate members” and accusing leadership of seeking to undermine the “Repay the Risk” campaign. In an email to staff seen by RNZ, the Association rejected the notion that participation in the campaign was unprofessional, arguing instead that it is “highly professional to care about your terms and conditions and take collegial action to seek improvements, thereby aiding the viability of your occupation.” The Association asserted that members’ right to engage in union activity must be protected and urged employers to respect that right without imposing restrictions inconsistent with those applied to other external materials.
Association’s Call to Action
Beyond disputing the characterization of the campaign, the Association instructed any members who experienced “retaliation” to contact the union for support. It noted that Commissioner Richard Chambers had been briefed in advance about the campaign materials and had raised no concerns at that time. Association president Steve Watt had subsequently written to the Commissioner outlining the union’s concerns and signaled a willingness to “take things further if we must.” This stance indicates the Association’s readiness to escalate the dispute, potentially through formal grievance procedures or public advocacy, should the police leadership continue to enforce the ban on campaign materials.
Police Response and Next Steps
When approached for comment, police said they had “no further comment” on the matter. The implication is that the directive to remove existing stickers and prevent new ones will stand unless challenged through internal review or external pressure. With bargaining set to commence on 1 May, both sides appear poised for a period of heightened negotiation. The removal of the stickers from Dunedin Central Police Station may be a temporary compliance measure, but the underlying disagreement over the appropriate expression of union advocacy remains unresolved.
Broader Implications for Police Labor Relations
This episode marks a notable shift in New Zealand police labor relations, as it represents the first time the Police Association has pursued a highly visible, non‑strike campaign. The incident underscores the tension between officers’ legitimate desire to improve pay and conditions and the police service’s emphasis on uniformity, branding, and public perception of professionalism. How the dispute is resolved could set precedents for future bargaining rounds, influencing what forms of advocacy are deemed acceptable and how police agencies balance internal dissent with the need to maintain community trust. The outcome may also affect morale among officers, who must navigate the fine line between advocating for their rights and adhering to institutional expectations.
Conclusion / Outlook
As the 1 May bargaining start date approaches, the “Repay the Risk” campaign will likely continue to shape discussions both within police ranks and between the Association and police leadership. The immediate focus will be on enforcing the removal of non‑branded materials while addressing the Union’s claims of intimidation and rights infringement. Whether a compromise emerges that permits limited, approved forms of visible advocacy—or whether the police service doubles down on its professionalism standards—will have lasting implications for how police labor disputes are conducted in New Zealand moving forward.