Union test case for women fails in Australia

Press, 20 February 1986, Page 37

Union test case for women fails in Australia

By

CHRIS FALVEY,

AAP correspondent through NZPA Melbourne The Australian Arbitration Commission has rejected the concept of comparable worth in the Australian Council of Trade Union’s test case for women.

A Full Bench headed by the commission’s president, Mr Justice Maddern, said the notion was confusing, inappropriate and "particularly destructive of the present wagefixing principles.” The A.C.T.U. had sought to use comparable worth as a vehicle for improvements in women’s pay by extending the 1972 equal pay for work of equal value decision principle. An objective set of criteria to evaluate a person’s work value was “to be used to show the work of women in traditionally female-dominated occupations was historically undervalued compared with men in traditionally male occupations.

But the three-member Full Bench said in its unanimous decision: “Such an approach would strike at the heart of longaccepted methods of wage fixation in this country and would be particularly destructive of the present wage-fixing principles. “. . . the use of the term comparable worth in the Australian context would lead to confusion, and in

particular, we believe that it would be inappropriate and confusing to equate the doctrine with the 1972 principle of equal pay for work of equal value. “For all these reasons, we specifically reject the notion.” The Confederation of Australian said the decision was “a resounding victory for employers.”

The C.A.I. senior industrial relations advisor, Mr Greg Smith, said the commission had accepted employer arguments that comparable worth was an “ill-conceived and fanciful” notion that would destroy any rational system of wage fixation. “The notion is dead,” Mr Smith said. The A.C.T.U. said the decision did not prevent unions arguing that women in certain occupations had not gained the benefit of the 1972 equal pay for work of equal value decision. The A.C.T.U. industrial officer, Ms Jenny Acton, said the commission had confirmed the unions’ belief the 1972 decision still applied in wage fixing principles.

The A.C.T.U. will now prepare a test case for nurses, arguing the claim on three fronts: that the 1972 decision principle still applies; that an anomaly exists; and that pay increases are justified on changes in work value.

The A.C.T.U. will argue

that the base for nurses’ wages is historically undervalued because it was in part determined on sex and therefore they had not gained the full benefit of the 1972 decision.

The A.C.T.U. secretary, Mr Bill Kelty, conceded the “general philosophical argument” of comparable worth had “taken a fall.” But the merit of the A.C.T.U.’s claim had not suffered from the landmark decision, he said.

The strongest criticism of the decision came from the Council of Action for Equal Pay which said the ruling was appalling and a disaster.

A council spokeswoman, Ms Barbara Jennings, said the commission had only confirmed that women’s work was undervalued “and it should stay that way.”

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the September quarter showed average earnings for women were more than $7O a week below those for men.