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
Starting a new job? What to look for in an employment contract

Starting a new job is an exciting time, whether it’s your first one or you’re moving on to greener pastures there’s a lot to consider – like how will you celebrate?! What will you wear on your first day? And what’s the commute going to be like? But before you start planning whether you’ll bike or train to work, you’ll need to review and sign your employment contract. This part can often feel daunting for new workers, but don’t worry – here’s a handy guide for what to look out for in an employment contract. This one might seem obvious, but it’s important – so worth mentioning first. It’s vital to ensure that the details contained in your employment contract...

Starting a new job contract review
Employment Law
Is “small scale” wage theft affecting you?

We’ve all heard the stories of large-scale wage theft, where millions of dollars are stolen from workers by paying employees well under award rates or failing to pay overtime. You may be a victim of wage theft if your employer has: However, did you know many Aussie workers are also victims of “small scale” wage theft? Most people aren’t even aware of what “small scale” wage theft is or how it can add up. Small scale wage theft occurs when workers are taken advantage of in small ways on a regular basis. Each instance may only be small – such as being required to work through breaks or being required to clock on after your shift begins or log off before your work is really...

Workers on break
Employment Law
Injured migrant food delivery workers can’t afford medical costs or time off to recover if inju …

Former Uber Eats rider Bruna Correa had only been in Australia for three months when she was car-doored by a driver getting out of a parked vehicle, while delivering food in Sydney last year. She required two surgeries, four months off work and three months’ worth of physiotherapy. When the driver’s door flung open, she fell off her bike and recalls seeing her arm hit the ground, breaking her wrist before the ambulance came. After realising she would no longer receive income to support herself, she sought legal support to lodge a Compulsory Third Party (CTP) claim. This meant she was supported by weekly payments to cover her lost income through her CTP claim which have now come to an...

Bruna prior to accident cropped

We're here to help

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