Back

2. The 2000/01 Queensland Pay Equity Inquiry

Whilst the 2000/01 Inquiry made a number of recommendations, it needs to be said that these recommendations were made in the context of a system which had been progressively moving away from centralised wage fixing and towards enterprise bargaining. It is difficult to foresee how, in a de-centralised system, comparative pay equity across industries for an occupational group as large and diverse as clerical and administrative workers.

Achieving equal pay for work of equal value would require the assessment of work value on a comparative basis. Whilst WorkChoices, with its focus on individual contracts, undermines the capacity to examine wages on a comparative basis, enterprise bargaining has a similar impact as it does not necessarily allow comparable work value to be assessed against other industries. Even within the same employer, the segmentation of bargaining into occupational sub-groups inhibits comparative work value assessments as agreements are negotiated and/or certified separately, and the Equal Remuneration Principle test applies only to the individual agreement being certified, be it a whole of enterprise agreement or an occupationally based enterprise agreement. Women and men in clerical and administrative work are most often in the minority in industries/enterprises, less likely to be unionised, and historically have less bargaining power, which mitigates against enterprise bargaining leading to improved comparative pay and conditions (particularly where skills shortages skew the labour market).

To what extent have the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 made as a result of the recommendations contained in Worth Valuing, the report of the 2000/01 Pay Equity Inquiry, been successful in achieving progress towards pay equity?

Awards

Despite the recommendations of the 2000/01 Inquiry there has been an absence of effective work value examinations in Awards. This is particularly relevant when considering the application of the Equal Remuneration Principle as it operates (or fails to) where an agreement of any kind over-rides the base award.  Unless the base award can be definitively proven to have undergone a legitimate work value exercise at the time of the skills based classification structure (most did not - they were negotiated), then any pay increases or trade-offs can't be measured against the principle.  That is, the starting point (the Award) may have been flawed with respect to pay equity to start with.  In any event, there is no test for the certification of agreements in terms of either the base award nor the actual pay increase (broadly termed), which is particularly muddied when the employer or agreement has multiple occupational groups with differential outcomes, for example, different allowances or even pay increases.

There is also a lack of, or inadequate recognition of qualifications in many female-dominated industries/occupations. This can be seen in the different career paths and qualifications requirements of trades vs. administrative work.  Trades work is heavily influenced by the competency and licensing model, which is not necessarily about comparable worth and is highly influenced by labour market movements.

Lack of consistency in 100% rates

In the late 1980’s there was a push by the trade union movement to seek to achieve pay equity through the establishment of skill-related career paths within both Awards and Agreements.

The 100% rate was fixed as the ‘trade’ rate in a number of awards, through skills alignment using the Australian Qualifications Framework. Similarly across awards 100% rates were identified as ‘trade’ equivalent through their alignment with AQF qualifications. Such an alignment of skills could have been a mechanism for achieving pay equity, however, the actual pay for the 100% level differs dramatically across awards and agreements.

It should also be noted that the increasing irrelevancy of Awards as the determinants of wages and working conditions as a result of WorkChoices and also enterprise focused bargaining in the state system make it difficult for Awards to be used as a vehicle for achieving pay equity across such a large and diverse occupational group as clerical and administrative employees.

Certified Agreements

Enterprise bargaining will not close the pay equity gap. It does in fact have the potential to make it bigger given the dispersion of union membership and the structure of industry and occupational groupings.  Administrative staff are often not the largest occupational group in a workplace nor the most highly unionised. 

Whilst s156(1)(l) and (m) requires the QIRC not to certify an agreement unless satisfied males and females will be remunerated equally, there is no explanation as to how the QIRC is to apply this provision.  Is the question of "remuneration" meant to be only about the actual pay rise awarded, or should it take into account the base award/skills based classification structure?  As indicated previously, there is no requirement on the QIRC to determine whether pay equity exists within base award classification structures.

Similarly, the QIRC is not required to take into account the full range of non-monetary remuneration which is currently being offered to some workers. Such non-monetary remuneration may include benefits such as rental allowances, the provision of accommodation, training incentives and incentives to maintain employment with one employer for a number of years.

The Certified Agreement provisions require the QIRC to accept an affidavit from an employer stating that the requirements have been met. There is no clarification of what the QIRC ought to do in the context of opposition or concerns put by either parties, those covered, or other interested parties. Indeed, how are employers meant to provide an affidavit of any substance in the absence of any criteria or requirements to show the affidavit is genuine?  The only precedent, the Ergon case, does not assist because the question wasn't answered and the merits never examined.

CASE STUDY - ERGON AND THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY

In the Ergon case, the issue was that an ‘attraction and retention’ wage increase was applied to the whole of the Technical Stream and denied to the Administrative Stream.

The ASU was denied access to crucial documentation with respect to the application of the proposed pay increases which clearly applied to the whole Technical Stream. The Technical Stream covers many employees outside of the 'skills shortage' justification argument which was put forward with respect to electricians. 

Even though the ASU established a right to be heard, we were not afforded the right to make the other parties prove the veracity of their affidavits.  The deficiency needs to be rectified with either a public interest test applying to discovery on the affidavit statement where challenged by a party with standing, or perhaps a role for the matter to be heard by the ADCQ prior to certification.  In the absence of an interventionist Commission it is highly unlikely this deficiency can be corrected without legislative amendment.  In short, the Commission lacks the capacity for independent analysis on the question of whether it is satisfied with the affidavit in the absence of any mechanism to provide evidentiary material that could be tested. The question of who ought to test the material is also significant, and may be overcome by assigning rights to those opposing the certification, or seek to be heard, or the ADCQ upon application by one of those interested parties, including the QIRC.

The Ergon case with respect to the question of skills shortages also highlights the selective usage of that argument and the impossibility of testing that premise if the majority of the parties do not wish it to be tested.  For example, call centre skills shortages and organisational engineering skills shortages were not addressed in the Certified Agreement through the application of more attractive wages, even though the bonus was paid to the whole technical stream without any evidence that employees under that stream, other than electricians were in a ‘skill shortage’ category.

The legislative amendments do not address the ‘skewing’ of wages and wage relativities, such as pay equity considerations, where employers seek to apply an ‘attraction and retention’ bonus. So, in the Ergon case, the employer applied a wage bonus to the technical stream based on skills shortages, but ignored skills shortages in female dominated areas. This was then carried through the rest of the energy industry and versions applied across the rest of the public sector, albeit in a more sophisticated manner.

This case study is not unusual as historically women have been disadvantaged by their exclusion from most over-award payments. Women tend to be concentrated in industries/occupations where there is no access to these types of payments – for example, clerical and administrative workers. This is no different to women’s exclusion from ‘attraction and retention’ bonuses which are becoming more and more prevalent in many male dominated fields such as engineering, surveying, mining and the construction industry in general.

The current Certified Agreement provisions fail to deal with this issue effectively. Even within individual employers, bargaining can take place separately for different occupational streams and there is no provision for the QIRC to examine multiple agreements from the same employer for evidence of pay equity.

Recent changes to the State Act allow for an Agreement to be certified after a vote of employees, even if one or more union parties to an Agreement have not signed it. This exacerbates the problem and creates the risk of parties colluding to provide higher wage outcomes to particular groups at the expense of another group which may not be as well unionised or have the same degree of bargaining power (eg. The skills shortage justification).  Where a Union may have refused to sign an agreement as a result of concerns that the Agreement would result in pay inequity, they would be put in an intolerable position of having to sign the agreement to maintain rights to represent members, even if the union believed that the equal remuneration principle had been breached. This recent legislative should be reversed or significantly amended.

CASE STUDY – QUEENSLAND HEALTH

Whilst Queensland Health is not covered by the federal Workplace Relations Act, the conduct of enterprise bargaining within Queensland Health and its reliance on market forces to determine wage outcomes for different groups of employees has a similar impact as the de-regulation of the labour market under the federal system.

The ASU has coverage of administrative stream employees within Queensland Health. Queensland Health has employees whose conditions are governed under two separate Acts – public servants who are employed pursuant to the Public Service Act under the Public Service Award and public sector workers who are employed pursuant to the Health Services Act under the District Health Services Award - State. Despite the differing legislative basis for employment, the wages and conditions of administrative stream employees are very similar and wage increases are determined pursuant to Certified Agreements which cover both public servants and public sector workers.

Administrative stream employees are employed under a classification structure which ranges from base grade entry level employees at AO1 (under 21 years) and AO2 through to management level employees employed at AO8. In addition, there are Executive level positions above this.

The classification structure is meant to provide a career path for administrative stream employees, however, in practice, the vast majority of positions are at the base grade (AO1/2) level and the majority of employees at senior levels in the classification structure did not start at AO1/2, although there are obviously exceptions to this. The gender breakdown of administrative staff by classification level and indeed, the real perceptions of our members suggest is that it is far more likely  for a male employee to navigate the ‘career structure’ following entry at AO1/2 than it is for female employees.

There is no clear career path within Queensland Health nor proper professional development opportunities for administrative staff. The classification levels each present a barrier to career progression and often the work performed at higher levels is managerial or financial type work. If an AO1/2 base grade entry level employee wishes to take on supervisory responsibilities they may have the opportunity to progress to AO3, however, there is little opportunity for career progression based on higher level administrative skills. In many facilities there is a gap between AO3 supervisors and AO6, AO7 and AO8 managerial levels, meaning the opportunities for progression are not available. More often than not, these higher level positions are filled from outside the organisation as opposed to opportunities for progression being given to existing administrative staff.

Table 2 – Breakdown of Administrative Employees within Queensland Health by Classification Level and Gender – Figures provided by the Minister for Health, April 2005. 

Classification	Female Headcount	Male Headcount	Total Headcount	Female %	Male  %
ATSI Admin Health Worker	31	10	41	75.61	24.39
Trainee Admin	40	13	53	75.47	24.53
Traineeship Public service	2	0	2	100	0
AO1	135	40	175	77.14	22.86
AO2	3750	376	4126	90.89	9.11
AO3	1345	290	1635	82.26	17.74
AO4	476	259	735	64.76	35.24
AO5	442	313	755	58.54	41.46
AO6	425	282	707	60.11	39.89
AO7	252	233	485	51.96	48.04
AO8	102	127	229	44.54	55.46
TOTAL	7000	1942	8943	78.27	21.73

In addition to the difficulty women (and their male counterparts) have in achieving advancement through the administrative classification structure the fact that bargaining takes place for different occupational groups separately potentially limits the capacity to achieve pay equity across the organisation.

It has been widely publicly reported that there are shortages of various clinical occupational groups, including doctors, nurses and allied health employees. In order to offer differential wage outcomes to clinical groups of employees, Queensland Health negotiates separately for different occupational streams. Whilst all employees receive the ‘Whole of Government’ wage and condition outcomes (eg. 4% per annum in the latest enterprise bargaining negotiations), Queensland Health has offered much larger wage increases to clinical occupational groups – medical, nursing, professional and technical. The effect of these wage increases to other occupational groups changes the relativities between occupational streams. The only streams not to receive wage increases (or offers in the case of Allied Health staff) well in excess of 4% per annum are the administrative and operational streams. Both of these streams have a majority of women workers – in the case of the administrative stream 78.27% (see Table 2); in the case of the operational stream 66.74% are women. (Figures provided by the Minister for Health, April 2005).

Whilst it is acknowledged that these wage increases (all in excess of 23% above the Whole of Government outcome provided to the administrative and operational streams) are in recognition of skill shortages, it is instructive to look at those vocational areas within the administrative stream which are also in shortage.

In that regard, it is instructive to look at the occupation of ‘Clinical Coding’. 

CASE STUDY - CLINICAL CODERS

Clinical coding refers to the assignment of codes to treatments provided as evidenced by patient medical records. Once treatment is completed a patient’s medical file is ‘coded’ – that is, all treatment provided is assigned codes. The vast majority of Clinical coders in Queensland Health are women employed in the administrative stream.

From 1 July 2007, Queensland Health is moving towards a Casemix funding model. Casemix funding relies on historical data as evidenced by treatments provided. From 1 July 2007, clinical coding will assume a new significance within Queensland Health, in that the accuracy of coding will have a bearing on future funding. Clinical coding has been historically understaffed within Queensland Health and as a result Queensland Health will need an injection of Coders to fill the shortfall. This work has traditionally been performed at the AO3 level in Queensland Health, however, the impact of this work on hospital funding means that its ‘value’ has a far greater significance and importance.

Unlike other streams where skill shortages are evident, Queensland Health have not sought to make Clinical Coding pay more attractive. In fact, in recent months, Queensland Health has been offering ‘trainee Clinical Coder’ positions at the lower AO2 level! Recently, an intensive 14 week Clinical coding training course was offered to AO2s which included a 4 week intensive university course and 10 weeks on the job ‘mentoring’. If trainees pass the examination they may apply for AO3 positions OR be required to Code on an ad hoc basis in exchange for higher duties. The rules requiring 3 days or more to be performed at a higher level mean that in many instances where AO2 staff who have completed training and are not appointed to AO3 positions could be assigned coding duties in such a way as to never attract higher duties payments. This scheme will be scrutinised in further detail by the ASU and must be addressed.

The ASU has achieved the reclassification of Medical Typists under our current Administrative Stream Agreement (see further information below). Given the work value recognition of medical typists at AO3 and the greatly increased significance of Clinical Coding, the ASU has suggested to Queensland Health the need to re-evaluate Clinical Coders at AO3. The initial response from Queensland Health was that we could take this issue up in the next round of enterprise bargaining negotiations – the current agreement expires in August 2008. This is in stark contrast to the wage offers made in other streams suffering skill shortages. Whilst the ASU is pursuing this issue corporately, it is notable that even specialist administrative occupations in shortage are given much lower priority in comparison with other occupational streams.

Impact of employer policies

Outside of the formal wage setting system employers also have policies which impact on pay equity.  For example, one large public sector employer in Queensland has implemented a new remuneration strategy to identify roles that require an additional allowance to attract and retain staff. To qualify for the additional payment, recruiting managers must show that the role qualifies by having a high turnover of staff (usually in excess of 20% in twelve months), difficulty in filling advertised roles and where remuneration has been identified as a significant factor.

Once the role is identified as ‘in demand’ the employer has the discretion to apply an allowance of between 5% and 20% or to increase the classification level of the role.

The higher classification level is applied mainly to technical or professional roles where market rates significantly exceed remuneration applicable by the organisation’s own structure. The classified remuneration level can be increased to that of a senior executive position without a corresponding increase in corporate or managerial responsibility.

The allowance in this large public sector organisation has so far been applied only to male-dominated engineering and construction industry roles and is applied to individual roles rather than across a classification.

The process that is applied seems justifiable in its basis and the intention legitimate but the question remains; why is it predominately male occupations which are a) accepted or recognised as “in demand” in the first place and  b) identified as qualifying for payments of additional remuneration to attract and retain staff? The allowance has never been applied to clerical or administrative staff, even though there are areas which meet the defined criteria for its application.

The question arises – ‘how can the principle of equal pay for work of equal value apply in conjunction with attraction and retention allowances?’ The work performed by two individuals may be of equal value in terms of what is required by the performance of the roles but because there is a perceived shortage of staff available to perform one of the roles, the remuneration becomes significantly unequal.

Impact of employer policies – systems of job evaluation

Whilst most awards contain classification structures which include generic level descriptors which give an indication of the type and level of work to be performed at each level, many employers have adopted ‘job evaluation systems’ to determine classification levels.

CASE STUDY – THE JEMs SYSTEM IN QUEENSLAND  HEALTH

The Queensland Public Sector has adopted the “JEMs” Evaluation system to classify positions and it is a requirement that all positions go through the “JEMS” process before reclassification can occur. The ASU has raised a number of concerns about the implementation of the JEMs system within Queensland Health over a long period of time and we have contended that it has not been applied in a way that provides proper recognition of work value, particularly in the administrative stream.

The vast majority of administrative stream employees within Queensland Health are employed at the AO1/2 – base grade entry level and the vast majority of these are women.

Culturally, it has been a long held and antiquated (but not uncommon) view within Queensland Health that progression past the AO1/2 base grade entry level requires either the performance of supervisory duties or the requirement to exercise a ‘financial delegation’.   There has been little capacity for the recognition of higher level administrative skills. Whilst the generic level descriptors for administrative work in the District Health Services Employees Award – State characterise base grade entry level work as basic administrative skills which are transferable across organisations, in order for work to be reclassified positions are required to be evaluated using the “Job Evaluation Methodology” (JEMs) which is the tool used for job evaluation in the whole of the public sector.

JEMs

The JEMs system was designed by Mercer Consulting and is a job evaluation methodology which is used across a number of industries and occupations and purports to provide an objective and sound evaluation of work value.

Mercer Consulting was contracted by the Queensland Government to review the JEMs system within the public sector in Queensland in 2005. The purpose of that review was to:

“ensure that the methodology reflects contemporary public sector roles and accountabilities. The review will ensure appropriate and consistent use of the methodology across the public sector. The review will take account of the equal remuneration principle.”  (Mercer Consulting 2006; Page 2)

In conducting the review, Mercer consulting focussed on two aspects of the system – the methodology itself and its application in the public sector.

The application of JEMs within Queensland Health

As part of our negotiations for the latest Certified Agreements within Queensland Health (Queensland Public Health Sector Certified Agreement (No. 6) and the Administrative Stream Employees (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement 2006) the ASU identified work value as one of the most important issues. Our contention was that much work being performed at the AO1/2 base grade entry level was in fact high level administrative work deserving of proper work value recognition within the classification structure. The under-valuing of such higher level work has also has ramifications for higher level classifications. Queensland Health’s initial response to our claim was to indicate that the JEMs system provides a fair and objective assessment of work value and any members who believed their work value was not appropriately recognised could individually apply for their jobs to be evaluated.

The ASU however, put forward that the application of the JEMs system within Queensland Health was flawed and had been unsuccessful in recognising work value for our members at the AO1/2 base grade entry level. The following is a summary of our concerns with the process:

• The widespread view that in order to be classified above AO2 staff have to either assume supervisory responsibility or have a financial delegation 
• The lack of proper recognition for administrative skills, reflective of the general notion that administrative work is ‘women’s work’
• The perception that the outcomes of JEMs processes within Queensland Health are pre-determined based on budgetary issues
• The perception that JEMs processes can be manipulated to produce the outcome desired by local management 
• The lack of training or information provided for staff who wish to pursue reclassification in how the process works and how to fill in the required documentation. This is highlighted by the claim by management that if staff who are seeking reclassification know how the process works and how to fill in the documentation properly that they will do so with a view to achieving reclassification! 
• The ability of local management to simply refuse Applications for evaluation 
• The inconsistent application of the methodology, due in part to the fact that implementation is de-centralised – there is no central control or monitoring of processes or outcomes for consistency 
• Evaluations conducted without reference to the position incumbents – it is a requirement of the process that incumbents are interviewed, however, there is often an assumption by more senior staff that they do not need to interview incumbents because they think they already know what is required by positions 
• The overwhelming budgetary constraints which result in most administrative work being viewed as AO2 level work and the reluctance by evaluators to value work at higher levels given the impact across the organisation – there is no incentive for local management to wish to properly value the work, and in fact a disincentive which also extends to providing adequate levels of administrative support for clinicians in the first place. 
• The traditional attitude within Queensland Health and indeed, of politicians towards ‘Administrators’ and consequently administrative work as a result of recent political campaigns, wherein ‘Administrators’ have been falsely identified as being too numerous as well as responsible for operational and clinical problems within Queensland Health. This attitude which has been both promulgated and unchallenged in the media by some senior Queensland Health management and politicians on all sides has had a major disadvantageous impact on the perception of the public of the value of administrative work, and on the morale of such workers. 

In reviewing their job evaluation methodology against the Equal Remuneration Principle, Mercer found that overwhelmingly many of the issues associated with the inadequacy of the process were in its application, which occurs in a de-centralised context. However, they did recognise that there were shortcomings in the system itself which included (amongst others) how “softer’ skills are valued such as: 

• caring for people 
• customer service 
• fine work dexterity 
• roles exposed to risk or hazardous environments
• regional supervisory and general staff roles and roles demanding significant multi-skilling and tasking
• roles subject to constant evolution, redesign, changing demands and contexts and technology  rate compared to ‘managing resources”. (Mercer Consulting 2006; Pages 6 & 7)

Despite the above observations, Mercer Consulting did indicate that “a highly skilled and experienced evaluator (could) utilise the manual in its current form, to consistently and reliably evaluate positions.” (Mercer Consulting 2006; Page 6)

The theoretical application versus the reality provides little comfort in pursuing the principle at hand.

As part of our enterprise bargaining negotiations, the ASU nominated five (5) “Priority List” classifications to be reviewed. Whilst we believe there is an enormous amount of work being performed at ‘base grade entry level’ within the administrative stream in Queensland Health, we identified those positions in the first instance that we believed would clearly succeed on work value grounds. Rather than allow these positions to be evaluated through the normal Queensland Health JEMs process, the ASU insisted that the positions be evaluated both centrally AND independently. This involved a very time consuming process of identifying all skills, knowledge and duties required for these classifications, creating standard job descriptions under each category, having two (2) senior JEMs evaluators work on the “JEMs Analysis Questionnaires” for each of the job descriptions created and then having them independently evaluated by very senior and experienced evaluators from CorporateLink – Shared Service provider to the Queensland government. (It is noteworthy that whilst the JEMs policy within Queensland Health requires the development of standard job descriptions, the development of job descriptions takes place at the local level and there is no consistency in how work is described or set out. As part of the process for achieving reclassification of employees, standard job descriptions had to be developed.) 

The five (5) categories evaluated were:

•   Medical Typists 
• Medico-Legal Officers 
• Directors’ Secretaries 
• Rural/remote (staff in areas where a high level of multi-skilling/tasking is required) 
• Purchasing/Supply/BEMs (Building, Engineering Maintenance) clerks

In all of these categories numerous ASU members had applied and had their jobs evaluated using the “JEMs” methodology within Queensland Health and in the vast majority of cases, the evaluations had consistently come out at AO2. The process undertaken centrally yielded 20 ‘standard’ job descriptions, 18 of which were independently evaluated at AO3.

It is instructive to examine two of these categories in more detail.

 CASE STUDY – DIRECTORS’ SECRETARIES

Three standard job descriptions were identified under this category which included those who provided secretarial support to clinical directors, those who additionally were responsible for assisting Clinical Directors in the management of clinics and those who provided support to Non-Clinical Directors.

This was one category where a number of staff had been able to achieve reclassification to AO3 (or higher in some instances). However, the vast majority were employed at AO2 and there was no consistency in the recognition of actual work value. In many cases where our members had achieved reclassification through the normal Queensland Health JEMs processes it was with the support of their local management. 

All three position descriptions were evaluated at AO3.

 CASE STUDY - MEDICAL TYPISTS

Three standard job descriptions were identified under this category, reflecting different amounts of medical terminology required and its application.

In this case, whilst many medical typists had attempted to have their positions JEMsed within Queensland Health over many years, this work was consistently evaluated at AO2. The responses to the evaluation of “medical typing” were interesting. In scoping and validating the skills and knowledge required, what was revealed was that whilst medical typists themselves and the clinicians to whom they provided medical typing services often recognised the high level of skill required to perform this function well, many others within Queensland Health were surprised that all three standard job descriptions were evaluated as AO3.

As part of the evaluation process a lengthy spreadsheet was prepared which scoped out the knowledge and skills required to perform the medical typing function. These were ‘validated’ by typists themselves, their administrative supervisors and the clinicians to whom they provided the services.

One anecdote which illustrates the ‘undervaluing’ of this work was that as part of the validation process, one administrative supervisor deleted all the skills and knowledge from the spreadsheet and when asked what the medical typists in that facility actually did, replied “they type”. This view of medical typing was widespread within Queensland Health and seen as ‘women’s work’, with little skill or knowledge required. This attitude towards ‘generic’ or ‘base grade’ positions is still prevalent.

Whilst we have indeed achieved proper recognition for these skills within the context of enterprise bargaining, it is instructive to note that, despite the completion of the Mercer Consulting report on the JEMs methodology in early 2006, nothing has occurred to fine-tune the system itself nor to deal with the inadequacies in its application. We have some 11 other categories of administrative work to be reviewed and evaluated independently under our Certified Agreement. It is instructive however, that the implementation of these evaluations and subsequent reclassifications of staff have taken an enormous amount of time – our claim was first lodged in 2005 and the Priority List reclassifications are only being implemented now. As a result of scarce resources applied to dealing with administrative stream issues in Queensland Health the ‘Review List’ are only now being scoped and validated for subsequent evaluation. Meanwhile staff in other administrative positions within Queensland Health remain subject to the same decentralised system, misapplied in the same ways which have served to under-value administrative work. For other occupational streams within Queensland Health the implementation of new classification structures and/or reclassifications have occurred in a far more timely manner, because they have been able to be centrally applied.

Professional Development Opportunities within Queensland  Health

Whilst wage differentials between streams in Queensland Health can be seen to be based on qualifications, there is also a stark contrast when it comes to professional development and training opportunities and recognition of same.

Medical, nursing and allied health occupational groups have all been offered professional development allowances to provide career progression opportunities. Within the administrative stream there is no professional development allowance and training opportunities are few and far between. Where our members at the lower levels are approved to access training, they often have to do the training in their own time at their own expense. This was an issue during enterprise negotiations for the current Certified Agreements and whilst Queensland Health were prepared to consider professional development opportunities for other streams, there was a refusal to discuss professional development or career development opportunities for administrative stream staff. 

Whilst we have received commitments from Queensland Health to stream line Recognition of Prior Learning processes for existing administrative staff and to the development of an administrative training framework, no work has actually been done towards achieving that end. It is felt amongst our members to be highly likely that these issues will not be seen as a priority in the face of demands from clinical streams. Therefore, our members get little opportunity to prove their skills (through, for example, recognition of prior learning) nor to develop new skills through the application of equitable training provisions. 

Non-monetary reward schemes

The point also needs be made that 'feminine' skills shortages are often dealt with in different ways, for example, by HR strategies designed to influence the work environment. Examples include call centre games, competitions and social occasions. rather than a monetary strategy.  This may reflect a deep-seated prejudice regarding reward and recognition in a gendered way, that is, women don't work for the money, it's a family's second job, it's not a career, or it's women's work and shouldn't be highly paid.

In this context, it is also noteworthy that Queensland Health adopted ‘interested based bargaining’ as a negotiation strategy for their certified agreements. In the administrative stream, the concept of ‘interest based bargaining’ was used to suggest strategies other than monetary rewards to resolve issues such as lack of recognition of work value and the like, whereas monetary strategies were adopted for other occupational streams.

Inequities between Industries

It is also noteworthy that there is a disparity between wage and condition outcomes between public and private sector. In the health industry for example, despite the disparity that exists between occupational groups within Queensland Health, there is no mechanism to ensure consistent outcomes in the private sector. Generally, the same types of administrative work are performed in both public and private hospitals, however, there is a wage gap between what these employees are being paid, with private hospital pay rates often significantly less than those applying in the public sector. The vastly differing wage outcomes for clerical and administrative workers across the workforce also make comparable worth difficult to achieve.  

QWAs 

With respect to QWAs, there are no real mechanisms to address pay equity issues within the QWA stream of the Act. They present the same problems as AWAs with respect to their undermining of any measures to address pay equity issues.

Precarious employment

The Inquiry report did not address, nor make recommendations to address, the issue of precarious employment in which women tend to be concentrated. Many employers require part-time employees to work up to 38 hours a week on ordinary time, that is, employees who have chosen to work part-time for family responsibility reasons for example, do not have any certainty of hours, nor the flexibility to reject extra hours.

Those in precarious employment are most at risk when reorganisation or re-engineering occurs as the following examples indicate.

CASE STUDY - CENTRAL  QUEENSLAND  UNIVERSITY

 Recently, the Central  Queensland  University announced a ‘re-engineering’ project to:

•  Upgrade services to students whilst reducing duplication across the university 
• Enhance marketing opportunities to prospective students 
• Increase its use of information technology 
• Overhaul human resources development and realign staffing levels.  

The University management also indicated that the re-engineering process would focus on training and development for permanent staff to take up more technologically driven positions, whilst decreasing reliance on contract and casual staff. This will ultimately lead to the loss of about 200 positions and whilst many of these staff would be regarded as ‘long-term’ employees there would be no redundancy pay or conditions because the positions are contract and casual. The majority of staff in these types of precarious employment are women. This has been compounded by an ‘administrative staffing freeze’ in relation to permanent appointment, which has resulted in no permanent appointments to administrative positions at the University since 2003.  

Work Life Balance

As indicated previously, work life balance issues also have an impact on pay equity.

CASE STUDY - QANTAS MUMS  

Qantas has previously had a local agreement with employees which allowed mothers who return from maternity leave to ease back into the workforce by working only part-time; 4 days per week.  

While other part time staff are rostered to work 5 days per week, Qantas recognised that there are special circumstances until an infant reaches 2 years-of-age, that required these mums to work only 4 shifts per week: this facilitated a healthy ‘work/life balance’. 

It did not require any additional administration and other staff were not aggrieved that this ‘special category’ had additional privileges. It generally worked well.  

In October 2006, Qantas reneged on their agreement with these women, instead decreeing that this return-to-work roster was too costly to continue and that all part-time staff would be required to work 5 shifts per week. Return-to-work mums would now be required to work the same roster like all other part time staff. This is despite assurances from Qantas prior to these women taking maternity leave that they would be able to return on 4 day a week rosters.

By working 4 hours per day over the 5 day roster, these mums now had to incur childcare costs for the 5th day shift. If their shift was extended, they were required to pay the childcare centre for the additional time, at sometimes as much as $22 per hour.

Effectively, most of the 5th day earnings were spent on childcare costs. Taking into account traveling, petrol and toll bridges, some of these women were not actually earning anything for working the 5th day. One woman was only earning $20 per week more than if she was receiving Centrelink family allowance payments. 2 of these women resigned their employment as a result of the decision.

With the assistance of the ASU, the women lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland, and attended a conciliation conference with Qantas. The matter failed to resolve and it has been referred to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. A hearing date is expected in some 15 months, in September 2008.  

Until then Qantas are refusing to accommodate these return-to-work mum’s request. They are having to work 5 days per week until their infants reach 2 years of age. Some mums have resigned because of the stress this rostering arrangement has caused. Others have said that working 5 days per week, effectively the same hours as any other full-time staff member once travel to and from work is accounted for, has put a tremendous pressure on their family relations.  

In the context of seeking redress to this issue, it is noteworthy that by September 2008, when they will finally get to have their matter heard and determined, many more of this category of staff will have resigned their employment.  

This is also relevant to the concept of empowering the ADCQ to have a greater role in pay equity issues. The ADCQ would clearly require a massive injection of specialist resources if it were to take on any additional responsibilities with respect to pay equity and any recommendations to that effect would need to be tempered by the length of time currently being taken to deal with existing issues through the Tribunal. Late justice may be no justice at all in this context.  

What have been the benefits of the Equal Remuneration Principle as a tool for advancing pay equity?

The ASU has not been involved in any matters using the Equal Remuneration Principle that have resulted in positive outcomes with respect to pay equity. As outlined above, our attempted use of the Principle in the Ergon case failed to achieve any outcomes with respect to pay equity or even an examination of pay equity issues in that case.  

What have been the limitations of the Equal Remuneration Principle as a tool for advancing pay equity?

With respect to addressing pay equity issues for clerical and administrative workers, the fact that these workers work in all industries and enterprises in a range of extremely diverse roles makes it almost impossible to run cases under the Equal Remuneration Principle. The two cases which were conducted under this Principle – dental assistants and childcare workers – were discrete occupational groups. Whilst it may be possible to use the Principle for a very limited and defined group of clerical and administrative workers, its application across such a diverse occupational group is simply not feasible in the current decentralised environment.

Should the Equal Remuneration Principle be retained either in its current form or some other form? If it is to be amended, what aspects should be altered?

The Equal Remuneration Principle needs to be both retained and enhanced. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, alternatively the ADCQ, needs to be given the power and authority to be more interventionist on the question of pay equity. This would obviously include the power to require parties to an Agreement to provide evidence in support of affidavits claiming pay equity has been taken into account, for example, in the Ergon case.

Either the QIRC or the ADCQ need to be given the power to independently investigate pay equity issues across industries and also across occupations and to do proper assessments of pay equity issues within base Awards as well as Agreements.