Murray Watt intervenes to back union in gender pay case

A letter obtained by The Australian reveals the Workplace Relations Minister pledging a re-elected Albanese government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission over low-paid workers.

Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt hugs Ali France after she unseated Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in Dickson on Saturday. Picture Lachie Millard / NewsWire

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt has pledged to intervene in support of the Australian Services Union in a landmark gender pay case, following union concerns a recent Fair Work decision could result in pay cuts to social workers of up to $714 a week.

In a mid-campaign letter to ASU national secretary, Emeline Gaske, obtained by The Australian, Senator Watt acknowledged the union concerns that a new award classification structure could result in pay cuts and pledged Labor would make a post-election submission to the commission that the real wages of low-paid workers not go backwards.

The commission recommended pay rises of up to 35 per cent for 175,000 low-paid workers in ­female-dominated sectors but the ASU believes an overhaul of the award covering social, community, home care and disability ser­vices (SCHADS) workers will result in pay cuts, including $636 a week for sexual assault specialists, and $714 a week for family and domestic violence workers.

In his April 17 letter to Ms Gaske, Senator Watt said the government and the ASU had shared objectives in relation to gender equality, closing the gender pay gap, and wages growth.

“I acknowledge the ASU’s concerns that the Fair Work Commission’s proposed approach to remedying gender undervaluation outlined in the provisional decision – in particular abolishing the current five separate classification structures and instead implementing a single, simplified classification structure – may operate to reduce the wages of many members covered by the SCHADS Award,” he wrote.

“Labor’s clear position is that the wages of low-paid workers should not go backwards.”

He said the commission had made it clear that the decision was provisional only and, in the next stage of the case, the commission would seek views on their proposed approach before any final decisions were made.

Senator Watt said a re-elected Albanese government would make a submission to the commission “aligned with our position that real wages of low-paid workers should not go backwards”.

He said the government would tell the commission that the gender undervaluation review should not result in any reduction in worker entitlements, and current minimum wage rates for NDIS workers as funded by the NDIA must be protected.

In an April 23 letter to commission president Adam Hatcher, Ms Gaske cited several case studies where workers would be worse off from the provisional decision, including a family and domestic violence hearing support co-ordinator whose weekly pay would fall from $2136 to $1422.

According to the union analysis, an experienced sexual assault specialist crisis worker supporting victims of sexual assault would suffer a $636.80 weekly pay cut; an Aboriginal case worker supporting people in transitional housing would lose $398 a week; a mental health peer worker who supports trans youth with mental health issues would lose $300 a week; and a residential youth housing worker who supports young people in the out of homecare system would suffer a $257 a week cut.

Ms Gaske said while the union understood the commission’s intention was that no worker should have their pay reduced as a consequence of the proposed classification structure, it was concerned that only the current pay of existing employees at their current employer would be protected.

She said the union was concerned the work of future employees, or employees who changed roles, were subject to a restructure, or change jobs, would be “de-­valued from the current position”.

Ms Gaske told The Australian Senator Watt’s intervention was “absolutely critical” because the government was the primary funder of the services.

“They procure the services on behalf of the commonwealth to deliver services to people who need them like people experiencing domestic violence, youth homelessness, alcohol and other drug addiction, and they know the services that need to be delivered. “We … take from the commitment that they don’t want to see that work deskilled or undervalued.”