it breached schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act 2000. She sought an order determining what rate would represent equal pay and an order amending her employment contract to reflect that rate. The second proceeding was brought by Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc (the Union), on behalf of 15 caregivers who were members of the Union, and who considered the wage rates not to provide for equal pay within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act. The Union sought a statement under s 9 of the Equal Pay Act of the general principles of equal pay. Individual employees do not have the right to make applications under s 9; this, the Court of Appeal assumed, was the reason that two separate proceedings were brought in the Employment Court. The Court of Appeal noted in its judgement that, "rather unhelpfully", the statement sought by the Union consists simply of a restatement of the statutory provisions. The Court also noted that there was a regrettable lack of clarity in the way the Employment Court dealt with the preliminary questions. This was primarily caused by confusion as to which of the proceedings the Employment Court was referring to at various points in its judgement. It also failed to explain how it intended to carry out a s 9 application, or how a s 9 hearing would add to or differ from a determination of the claim already before them, filed by Ms Bartlett. Further complicating matters was the fact that the Court of Appeal was being asked to decide on a question of law before a full examination of facts in a lower court. This required them to take an approach which did not prejudge the outcome of the following inquiry. Difficulties of the parties The Court acknowledged three difficulties that were facing the parties, interveners and the Employment Court in this case. The first was the cumbersome syntax and "elliptical" drafting of the Equal Pay Act. The second problem was the ambiguity of the Commission report which led to the Act. The judges found this particularly unfortunate since the wording of s 3(1)(b) was essentially unchanged from the report, meaning that the report was of limited use to the parties, interveners and the courts. The final difficulty was the lack of existing case law on the matter. Question of law on appeal Appeals to the Court of Appeal