Equal Pay

Librarians case sets new benchmark for equal pay

To summarise, the application by the PSA was for a new award covering librarians, library technicians and archivists employed in the New South Wales public service. The PSA sought one award to apply. The Public Employment Office (PEO) sought one award to cover library workers in the public service and a separate award to cover archivists. The Department of Education and Training (DET) sought a separate award to cover library workers in TAFE - Learning Resource Officers.

This was the first case to be taken to have the Equal Remuneration Principles applied to a group of workers. The Equal Remuneration Principles provide for the alteration to wages rates or other conditions of employment where the work performed has been undervalued on a gender basis. In this case each of the parties acknowledged that for this group of workers their work had been undervalued on a gender basis.

However having agreed that undervaluation existed the parties differed on how this undervaluation ought to be remedied. The issue before the Commission was not only a simple adjustment of rates to correct the gender imbalance but also to determine questions of the appropriate award coverage and the design and classification of grading structures.

The main outcome of the case was that the Commission made a single award that applied to librarians, library technicians and archivists employed in the NSW public service and TAFE. The Commission set an interim award that takes effect from the beginning of the first pay period after the Decision. The interim award effectively gives workers covered an immediate pay increase. Librarians, library technicians and archivists up to 26%. It abolishes entry level salaries for library technicians and grants some of these workers an 92% wage increase.

The Commission directed that negotiations begin on classification structures which should contain descriptors and a career path. They suggested a separate classification structure for librarians and archivists. The Commission hoped that the new award which would replace the interim award would be reached by the consent of the parties. The Commission also recognized librarians and archivists as a profession.

Crown Librarians, Library Officers and Archivists Award.

Full Bench: President Wright, Kavanagh J, Boland J, McKenna C

The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales:

Crown Librarians, Library Officers and Archivists Award proceedings - Applications under the Equal Remuneration Principle established by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission.

Parties:
The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales:
Public Employment Office
Department of Education and Training
Intervening parties:
National Pay Equity Coalition
Women's Electoral Lobby
Business and Professional Women's Association of Australia

Four applicants:

The application by the PSA was for a new single award covering librarians, library technicians and archivists employed in the New South Wales public service. The PEO sought one award to cover library workers in the public service and a separate award to cover archivists. The Department of Education and Training sought a separate award to cover library workers in TAFE - Learning Resource Officers.

This was the first case to be taken to have the Equal Remuneration Principles applied to a group of workers. The Equal Remuneration Principles provide for the alteration to wages rates or other conditions of employment where the work performed has been undervalued on a gender basis. In this case each of the parties acknowledged that for this group of workers their work had been undervalued on a gender basis.

However having agreed that undervaluation existed the parties differed on how this undervaluation ought to be remedied. The issue before the Commission was not only a simply adjustment of rates to correct the gender in balance but also to determine questions of the appropriate award coverage and the design and classification of grading structures.

Evidence from the Pay Equity Case Study - Librarians and Geologists was referred to in this Case. That Case study compared qualifications, award structures, career paths, remuneration and award histories of the two professions. The research compared work value using two different commercial points factor job evaluation systems. The findings were that the profession of librarian is female dominated and geologists is male dominated; the two professions require a similar entry level qualification; the jobs of senior librarian and senior geologists are of comparable value; the rates of pay for these two classifications differ by $8,909.00 pa - the difference being 19.75% of the librarian pay; that Geoscientists are less likely to be required to compete through merit based selection for career progression; that the disparity between work value, career opportunities, award classifications and rates of pay is likely to reflect undervaluation of the librarian work. The report also found that in the history of the occupation of librarian a resistance to the recognition of librarianship as a profession. The failure to recognise qualifications held by female librarians no doubt accounted for the long standing lower relativity between librarians and other professional public service qualifications. Librarians had remained low paid inspite of substantial change in the work value and that a work value assessment of their work had not been undertaken since 1982. There had not been a significant review of their occupation which at one time had a nexus with teachers but now their salaries lagged well behind teachers. That consent agreements and arrangements meant that rates weren't fully assessed.

The Report doubted the use of job evaluation techniques in the setting of salaries. Difficulties in using job evaluation arise because the process does not take into account the organizations capacity to pay, market factors including supply and demand, individual performance level of the person performing the job, physical environment and conditions of the work, particular requirements of the work such as traveling away from home, manual dexterity, physical capacity and particular risks or dangers associated with the work.

The 1998 Report also considered that subjectivity is involved and often the results depended on the quality and caliber of the consultant. It was also argued that systems continued to measure certain factors which might lead the results to favour a certain type of job or occupational group. Systems differ in the application and utility for instance some system are developed to be used in technical professional, management and are not suited to blue collars jobs. One witness, Ms Good from the PSA pointed out that in the public sector job evaluation techniques have not been effective in evaluating unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. Job evaluation is seen as being one of a number of tools available to the parties to deal with valuation issues.

Arguments were presented for and against using the Librarian/Geoscientists comparisons.
It is interesting to note that some in the media have drawn upon this issue as a means of criticizing the outcome.

Glynn, J in the Pay Equity Inquiry considers some reason for not accepting the comparison presented between librarians and geoscientists: the limitations in job evaluation techniques; the absence of any real rationale for the comparisons made either by reference to the establishment of the case study; failure in methodology and approach associated with actual job evaluation process; differences between the occupations which need to be further evaluated such as the existence of fieldwork for geoscientists and the adjustment of geoscientists rates based on market factors in the past.

Glynn J points out similarities worthy of note: they are both public service professional and well qualified; the workforce is stable and well unionized; their work has been consistently regulated by industrial instruments, the work in both occupations is undervalued having regard to the changes in the nature in their work skill and responsibilities. Glynn concluded that an assessment of the value of work of librarian should be conducted to remedy the undervaluation identified.

In the Librarian's Case the Commission found that the Case Study and Report by Glynn J provided a substantial platform upon which to base applications to remedy gender-based undervalution and that the conclusions reached by Glynn, J may explain why there was no dispute over the fundamental issue that wage increases are justified to remedy gender based under-valuation.

The Case:

The proceedings:

The parties outlined their respective cases, the Full Bench undertook inspections of various institutions, extensive documentary material was tendered, final submissions were also tendered.

The Equal Remuneration Principle requires an applicant to show that the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which the work is performed have been undervalued on a gender basis. The Principle does not require a party to show that the undervaluation flowed from a particular act of discrimination.

In this case all parties contended that librarians, library technicians and archivists had suffered gender based undervaluation. That there were two aspects to this undervaluation, one arising out of the history of their industrial regulation and the other that this historic undervaluation had been exacerbated by significant changes in the work value of each of the occupations which had not been taken into account in setting rates of pay.

The occupations of librarian, library technicians and archivists are female dominated. Seventy per cent of all librarians and library technicians are female. The occupations have been dominated by females since the 1930s.

Historic undervaluation

The Commission found that an important consideration in the undervaluation was that in the last quarter of a century no case has been arbitrated by the Commission which involves full consideration of the work value of librarians. Salaries had been adjusted by consent and wages adjusted according to movements in the Crown Employees (Public Sector -Salaries) Awards.

The Commission stated that absence of a proper inquiry into work value of librarians does not in itself prove the work is undervalued. However in absence of an assessment of value other indicators such as the fact that the salaries of other occupational groups which exhibit similar characteristics to librarians have been assessed on a work value basis at a higher rate of pay than librarians.
In Appendix 1 of Decision current salaries for selected librarian classifications levels are compared to their counterparts in a selection of professional classifications in the New South Wales public service - it shows that librarians receive a lower rate of pay than other professional groups.

The Commission noted that comparisons are made with groups exhibiting similar characteristics as librarians however they content that they do not have any evidence before them that the work of librarians is of equal value to the work of legal officers, psychologists or to the professional groups. (p20).

They accepted that the work of librarians has been undervalued. The main indicia of this being:-

· The findings of the Pay Equity Case Study - Librarians and Geologists.
· The findings of Glynn J in the Pay Equity Inquiry.
· The fact that the occupation of librarian in the public sector is female dominated.
· The consensus amongst the parties that the work of librarians is undervalued.
· That librarians are paid at lower rates than other public sector groups.
· That librarians have not been subject to a work value inquiry and the absence of any proper assessment of the work value enabled a strong inference to be drawn that the work of librarians has been and is undervalued.

The Commission also acknowledged that librarians and archivists fit into the groups of occupations which has historically been regarded as public service professions and may be properly considered as professions. Librarians and archivists exercise skills based on theoretical knowledge, require high level tertiary qualifications, are eligible for membership of independent associations, are subject to standards of competence and are obliged to follow ethical codes of conduct.

The Commission found that given the close nexus that existed between archivists and librarians that it is reasonable to conclude that the historic undervaluation of librarians' work has also occurred with archivists.

In considering the undervaluation of library technicians it was noted that this group of workers were not considered in the Pay Equity Case or Inquiry. The history of industrial regulation of library technician is that they were first subject of award regulation as library officers in Crown employees (Librarians and Library Officers, Library of New south Wales and Division of Library services - Department of Technical Education) Award 1973. This award was made by consent and did not involve any assessment of the work value of library technicians. In 1984 the PSB proposed a single ward covering librarians and library technicians however disagreement over issues such as career progression prevented agreement being reached.

Appendix 2 of the Decision has the current annual salaries for selected library technician classification levels compared to technician levels in a selection of paraprofessional classifications - it finds that universally technicians are paid at rates lower than other paraprofessionals groups in the public service.

Work value:
As stated above the Equal Remuneration Principles provide for the alteration to wages rates or other conditions of employment where the work performed has been undervalued on a gender basis, therefore an important feature of the case in the assessment of work value.

The PSA argued that there had been significant increases in the last decade in the work, skill and responsibilities of librarians, library technicians and archivists. Evidence was submitted from senior librarians as to the changes in work and the effects that developments in information and communication technologies have had on day to day library work.

Evidence was also taken in respect to the changes that have taken place in educational libraries. The provision of access to information and learning resources in audiovisual and electronic format, understanding of web based sources, the need for library staff to understand curriculum and on line learning. The Commission found that none of the changes described by the various witnesses had been considered by the Commission in the context of a work value review.

Solving the problem.

As it was found that gender based undervaluation existed the question faced by the Commission was how could this problem be solved. There were significant differences of opinion amongst the parties as to how the undervaluation was to be remedied. According to the principles undervaluation can be remedied in money terms or by other changes in conditions of employment, such as the reclassification of the work, establishment of new career paths or changes in incremental scales.

According to the Commission there were seven main issues for determination:

1. Whether there should be a single award applying to librarian, library technicians and archivists or a separate award for librarians and archivists.
2. Whether there should be separate award in TAFE as proposed by DET.
3. Whether librarians and library technicians should have a separate salary structure.
4. Whether the proposed award should have definitions or descriptors or whether they should be left to job evaluation systems.
5. Whether there should be hard barriers to promotion or career progression.
6. Whether there should be specific qualification requirements or recognition of equivalent qualifications.
7. Appropriate salary levels that reflect work value.

1. Single or Separate Award.

The first issue of whether there should be a separate award for archivists the Commission accepted that while there are definite distinctions between the work of librarians and archivists and that they should be regarded as two distinct professions they found that the distinctions did not justify a separate award.

2. Separate Award for TAFE.

On the issue of a separate TAFE Award was more problematic according to the Commission. The PSA argued that the TAFE proposals would not remedy gender based undervaluation but was more of a device designed to achieve TAFE's service delivery goals. The PSA claimed that the structure of the PSA award would not inhibit TAFE in the way that it wanted to operate in the future. It was also argued that the TAFE award if granted would cut them off from the broader profession and downgrade their professional status by classifying them as Library Resource Officers. The PSA argued that the TAFE application continues the historic resistance to proper recognition of librarianship as a profession which has been a cause of the pay inequity the subject of the hearing.

The Commission found that the work and work value of library staff in TAFE is not fundamentally different from that of library staff in the public sector. The Commssion could see no reason for splitting the librarian profession into two or more groups to do so would be to undermine the integrity of the profession and possibly limit the portability of the professional librarian skills and experience within the government sector. That the conditions of employment that are peculiar to TAFE library staff can be accommodated in an award applying to staff in both the public sector and TAFE.

3. Separate or same structures for Librarians and Library Technicians.

As to the issue of whether librarian and library technicians should have separate classification structures the Commission found that it was demonstrated that they constitute two distinct occupational groups and that they should have separate classifications structures. The separate classification structure should incorporate independent, viable career paths but with the opportunity for the paraprofessional to be able to transfer to the professional grades, having maintained the necessary qualifications.

4. Definitions or Descriptors in an Award.

The question of whether the new award should have definitions or descriptors or whether classifications would be left to job evaluation schemes was also problematic. The PEO argued to maintain the status quo by relying on job evaluation systems. DET relied on comprehensive descriptors and the PSA argued that job evaluation were problematic and that classification descriptors were essential to the proper grading of employees. The women's organizations made submission as to the adequacy of job evaluations, they generally favoured the PSA's position.

The Commission considered the appropriateness of job evaluations systems and referred to Glynn J report noting problems of subjectivity, that the standard of results often depends of the quality of the consultant, that some job evaluations systems measure factors that might lead the results to favour a certain type of job or occupational group and that they differ in there application and utility.

The Commission made no finding on whether job evaluation systems in the public sector constitute fair and reasonable conditions of employment but decided that the new award should contain classification descriptors. They suggested that the parties confer on the form and content of job descriptors and that they should consider the PSA's proposed descriptors, DET's proposed descriptors, State Library position descriptions and ALIA Guidelines. They may also want to consider how descriptors might operate in conjunction with job evaluation.

5. Promotional Barriers or not.

As regards to the issue of hard and soft barriers the PSA proposed to eliminate hard barriers and rely of classification descriptors. DET and the PEO proposed an easing but retention of hard barriers. It was pointed out that librarians faced more hard barriers to promotion than other comparable professions. The Commission recommended the inclusion of some checks in the classification structure by incorporating hard barriers at the appropriate points in the structure.

6. Specific qualifications required or other Equivalents.

On the issue of specific qualification requirements and of recognition of equivalent qualifications or experience the PSA argued for academic qualification recognized by the ALIA whereas the PEO and DET required academic qualification or equivalent qualification based on work experience. The Commission decided to allow for equivalent qualifications. The found that the primary qualification for library staff are those that are acceptable to ALIA and ASA and that recognition of equivalent qualifications standards must satisfy there standards and that recognition of equivalent qualifications is a common feature of qualification requirements including those in the public sector. The common instructed that the parties confer on how the provision for equivalent qualifications be expressed in the award.

7. Appropriate salary levels.

On the issue of appropriate salary levels the Commission considered salary scales submitted by the parties however they decided to adopt key elements of the PEO"s incremental and salary scales on the that their proposals represent a fair and reasonable rate of pay and reflect the work value of these occupational groups. They found that the rate of pay proposed by DET did not adequately meet the necessary objective of rectifying the undervaluation of the work of library staff.

An Interim Award made-

The Commission set an interim award with increases in the rates of pay from the first pay period on or after the date of the decision, that the interim award applies to all person employed as librarians, library technicians and library assistance and archivists in the Public Service of New South Wales and the Technical and Further Education commission. The interim award prescribed a classification structure set out in the decision and that the Commission directed the parties to confer on the terms of the new award to replace the interim award. The PSA was directed to file and serve within 90 days a document setting out the terms of the draft award and that the matter be listed for further directions before the Full Bench on the 29th July, 2002.

The Decision heralds a significant step in achieving the true value of women's work. It acknowledged that this group of workers had suffered from a historical undervaluation of their work. The Case in itself didn't test capacity to pay but proceeded on the value of the work being done. The case taken by the PSA stands a model for other unions to follow in pursuing claims as allowed in the Equal Remuneration Principles Case. This is an effective process as the outcome affects workers covered by an award and doesn't just confine an outcome to those in a particular workplace or enterprise. The Decision demonstrates the importance of the tribunal system and the benefits of active unionism in achieving pay equity in the workforce.

© 2001 Community & Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation (CPSU-SPSF) - National Office

http://www.cpsu-spsf.asn.au/campaigns/women/20020508_84.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005