Equal Pay—For Some

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32029, 2 July 1969, Page 16

Equal Pay—For Some

There may be a sense of disappointment—frustration would be too strong a word—in the reception accorded by union organisations in Australia to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in a test case on equal pay for women. The decision accepts the principle of equality of reward as between the sexes for the performance of the same work, but provides that this principle should be put into practice gradually. In the strictly limited field in which it has concluded that there should be wage equality the commission has made important qualifications; the commission considered it preferable to start from a decision in principle, and to let that principle work slowly through the system. It therefore ordered that unions should make their own applications to Conciliation Commissioners for each classification of

female workers for whom equal pay might be sought

This implies acceptance of principles already established in the state law of New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, where an estimated 70,000 women are getting equal pay. Women workers in Queensland and Victoria do not have the same recognition; and union pressure to bring awards in these two states into conformity with those elsewhere can now be expected. The judgment laid down an important central principle—that equality should depend on women doing the same work as men in precisely the same conditions. Some 250,000 women are employed by the Federal Government under awards; but a large proportion of them, including typists, nurses, receptionists, and even some factory workers, will not be eligible for any rise in pay. Because of the limited application of the judgment, its economic effects will for the time being be negligible. No more than 13 per cent of women workers are likely to be affected; and of these some 6 or 7 per cent are governed by awards in those states where equality has already been approved—and where, incidentally, it is proving difficult to apply. This means that the annual addition to the national wages bill when the judgment has become fully effective in 1972 will be only $4O million to $5O million—about 0.3 per cent. A rise of one

dollar as the outcome of a national wage decision would have added something like $l7O million to the wages bill.

Understandably, the Federal Government is relieved that the commission has favoured a gradual change. The acting Minister of Labour, Mr McMahon, described the judgment of the commission as a “ landmark ” in that it recognised the changing status of women, both socially and industrially; but he thought it prudent to phase in such increases as might be called for. He hoped that the prospect of equal pay would encourage more women to accept employment and help to relieve the shortage of skilled workers. The unions are naturally disappointed with the judgment; officials say that few women in industry will benefit from it. A special meeting of the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will consider the judgment in Melbourne at the beginning of July. The outcome, it has been suggested, might be a decision to seek a new general wage order.