Equal-pay advocates urged not to relax

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32775, 27 November 1971, Page 6

Equal-pay advocates urged not to relax

Equal pay advocates cannot now relax, in spite of favourable recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay for Women, in the opinion of Mrs Mary Batchelor, chairman of the Canterbury branch of the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity.

She foresees problems in getting equal pay implemented in the private sector, and also some possible anomalies. Interested organisations should be ready, Mrs Batchelor believes, to present submissions to the Government when legislation on equal pay is drawn up next year. “This will be the time to iron out the difficulties,” she said yesterday. The Minister of Labour (Mr Marshall) said in his statement on Thursday that in drafting an equal pay bill and associated legislation the Government would consider carefully the views of interested parties on the commission’s recommendations. DISCRIMINATION Mrs Batchelor believes legislation should be brought down to prevent discrimination against women entering any field in which they are capable. The commission has recommended an act of Parliament to prohibit discrimination in pay rates on the basis of

sex, lay down the principles to be followed, and establish the rights and obligations of employers and employees. Defining just what is exclusively men’s work, what is exclusively women’s work, and what is equal work concerns Mrs Batchelor. “I can see employers saying females do a certain job of work, but there is no comparable work done by males. In some industries the labour is almost entirely female.

“In these awards how are wages to be assessed? I would hope that recognition would have to be given to award rates in other industries where equal pay does exist,” she said. Mrs Batchelor also believes some employers could evade giving equal pay to women by emphasising fine differences in jobs. “The man’s job could be called one thing, and the woman’s job different in only very minor ways could be called another,” she said.

EQUAL PAY FIRST Although Mrs Rita King, president of the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity, has expressed disappoint-

ment that the commission’s recommendations do not cover measures to ensure equal opportunity for women, Mrs Batchelor believes this will follow equal pay. “Equal pay comes first, then equal opportunity.” The commission had done a good job within its terms of reference —to consider equal pay and how best to introduce it; and the recommendations “that a break in work service for maternity leave for a period not exceeding six months should not affect continuity of service

in respect of service pay scales or pension rights” was a very forward looking step, she said. However, Mrs Batchelor is disappointed at the recommended period of implementation. The commission suggests that equal pay should be implemented in all sectors of employment in five approximately equal steps, beginning on April 1, 1973, and reaching the final step on April 1, 1977. “Five years seems far too long,” she said. “It could have been done in three.”