You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

Be Bold For Change Image 2 Blog

Public commentary surrounding International Women’s Day on March 8 often focuses on the progress women have made in the workplace throughout history. This is a consequence of the fact that many of the injustices faced by women stem from entrenched economic disadvantage arising from discriminatory workplace practices.

While the details of the historical fight for equal pay are familiar to large sections of the Australian community, gender pay inequity currently facing women in 2017 is less understood by mainstream Australia.

All too often, conservative commentators frivolously allege that the fight for equal pay has already been won.

Therefore, on an important occasion such as International Women’s Day, it is important to be clear about what “the fight for equal pay” means in 2017 in practical terms.

The most significant development in this space in recent times is the equal pay case brought by United Voice and the Australian Education Union in respect of employees engaged in the early childhood education sector.

This case was commenced by an application for an Equal Remuneration Order under section 302 of the Fair Work Act in early 2013 and is still going on.

Section 302 of the Fair Work Act requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that workers are paid equal remuneration according to the concept of “equal or comparable value”.

In the important previous ASU equal pay case, the Full Bench of the Commission established that an application under section 302 needs to be decided in two stages.

First, the applicant must show that the workforce is dominated by women, that the industry is undervalued and that there is a causal connection between the two. Secondly, the applicant must show the steps that would be required to address the inequity.

This two-step approach has again been followed in the UV/AEU case.

In terms of the first step, contrary to the view in the previous ASU case, in late 2015 the Commission found that a male comparator was in fact an essential component of an application under section 302.

On this point, the Commission held that:

“the Commission must be satisfied that an employee or group of employees of a particular gender to whom an equal remuneration order would apply do not enjoy remuneration equal to that of another employee or group of employees of the opposite gender who perform work of equal or comparable value. This is essentially a comparative exercise…. We do not accept that s.302(5) could be satisfied without such a comparison being made.”

This is significant because it means that a determination that the work performed by women in female dominated industries in inherently undervalued is not possible under this section of the legislation.

On this point, leading academics Meg Smith and Andrew Stewart have argued that “Narrow and binary forms of job comparison may not be capable of assessing the complex means through which undervaluation may be embedded in the classification, organisation and remuneration of women’s work”.

However, this was rejected by the Fair Work Commission.

In response to the Commission’s decision on this point, the unions have identified the C5 and C10 classifications of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 as the appropriate male comparator for the Diploma Level and Certificate III classifications of the Children’s Services Award 2010 respectively.

Whether or not this is an appropriate comparator is yet to be decided by the Commission.

Given this year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Be Bold for Change”, the continuation of the fight for equal pay in 2017 is certainly an example of the union movement, led by women, being bold and fighting for change, as they have, and will continue to do, in the future.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Employment Law
Can my employer force me to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

Australia’s rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine has largely been welcomed with relief. According to the Department of Health, widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is expected to significantly slow community transmission of the virus, therefore reducing the need for preventative measures like border closures and travel restrictions[1]. However, a question that’s been asked a lot recently is: can your employer make you get vaccinated? There are no laws or public health orders requiring people to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Getting vaccinated is voluntary. The Fair Work Ombudsman has recently advised that most employers should assume they won’t be able to force employees to be...

Woman getting vaccinated
Employment Law
Life after lockdown: what are your rights with returning to work?

COVID-19 has changed many things in our lives. It has made us adapt to new social norms of staying 1.5 meters apart, it has introduced face masks to our daily lives, and it has caused a mass disruption to the way we work. But now that many lockdown restrictions are easing and we start to return to more “normal” ways of working, what are your rights to continue to work flexibly? If your employer wants you to return to the office, then in most cases you’ll have to go back unless their request is unreasonable or it’s unsafe. Whether it’s safe for you to return will depend on factors such as the nature of your employer’s business and how it’s carried out, whether your employer is...

Flexible working arrangements in COVID
Employment Law
National industrial manslaughter legislation would save lives

Strong national industrial manslaughter legislation is what Australian workers need, but a national law is not supported by the Federal Government. As a Workers’ Compensation lawyer in national law firm, I see the lack of consistency across the states and believe there should be national standards to protect all workers. Workers should feel safe no matter what state they live in. The recent death of a worker in Sydney’s Port Botany who was crushed between two shipping containers, and delays in commitment from the NSW Government to investigate industrial manslaughter laws, highlight the need for national reform. In the meantime, the NSW State Government needs to take fast action on...

Outdoor construction worksafe

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.