Introduction
The ninth exhibition of the Sir Richard Kirby Archives explores the important role Australia’s workplace relations tribunal has played in addressing the gap between male and female wages.
Content
The exhibition was launched by the Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG in November 2024.
A series of landmark cases shows how decision makers have continued to review and improve equal pay in jobs mostly done by women.
The 1969 and 1972 equal pay cases were milestones, establishing equal pay for the same work and for work of equal value. However, they didn’t resolve gender pay equity in award minimums due to:
- deep-rooted wage inequalities before these cases
- greater impact of historical underpayment in female-dominated industries
- legal and practical limits on reassessing women’s wages through broad wage-setting mechanisms
- award structures based on male-oriented skills that don’t reflect female-dominated work
- the C10 Metals Alignment Approach for award classification structures was not suitable for describing and rewarding work in female-dominated industries.
The exhibition highlights the Aged Care Work Value case as an example of ongoing efforts to achieve equal pay.
View the equal pay timeline display from the exhibition (pdf)
Read the exhibition booklet (pdf)
Read Michael Kirby's speech given at the exhibition opening (pdf)
Equal pay timeline
This timeline shows significant events in the history of wages for women in Australia.
2024 Equal Pay Exhibition
The 'Equal Pay – A history of women’s wages and the Commission' exhibition was opened by former Commission Member, Federal Court Justice and High Court Justice, the Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG on 19 November 2024.
This exhibition tells the story of how the Fair Work Commission and its predeces...
Read MoreThe 'Equal Pay – A history of women’s wages and the Commission' exhibition was opened by former Commission Member, Federal Court Justice and High Court Justice, the Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG on 19 November 2024.
This exhibition tells the story of how the Fair Work Commission and its predecessor bodies fought for equal pay for women. It includes displays from five major historical decisions, a timeline comparing women’s wages to men’s to show the gender pay gap, and objects from the archives.
Justice Kirby, Justice Hatcher, President and Vice President Asbury spoke at the opening. Read Justice Kirby's speech (pdf).
Read the exhibition booklet (pdf)
The event was attended by current and former Commission Members, Commission staff, and invited guests from registered organisations, law firms, and community legal centres.
1912 Fruit-pickers case
This was the first case before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Justice Higgins rejected a union call for equal pay for equal work. He made a ‘tentative’ decision that women should be paid the same rate as men if they are doing what was seen as 'male' work, such as blacksmi...
Read MoreThis was the first case before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Justice Higgins rejected a union call for equal pay for equal work. He made a ‘tentative’ decision that women should be paid the same rate as men if they are doing what was seen as 'male' work, such as blacksmithing, or work where men and women are in competition, such as fruit picking. Women in what was seen as 'female' jobs, such as fruit packing, should be paid less than men.
View the 1912 Fruit-pickers case poster from the exhibition (pdf)
Read the 1912 Fruit-pickers case (pdf)
1919 Clothing Trades Case
Making awards in the federal industrial relations system involved setting disputes between the states about awards. Unions often made claims reflecting the gender assumptions of union leaders and their mostly male membership, and this was often the reason for disputes.
Justice Higgins set a basic ...
Read MoreMaking awards in the federal industrial relations system involved setting disputes between the states about awards. Unions often made claims reflecting the gender assumptions of union leaders and their mostly male membership, and this was often the reason for disputes.
Justice Higgins set a basic wage for women workers at 35 shillings per week, while men received 65 shillings per week. Justice Higgins decided that women should be paid 54% of the male wage because, unlike men, women usually didn't have to support dependents. He said the pay rate for women should be suitable for a single woman supporting only herself .
Justice Higgins confirmed his earlier decision in the 1912 Fruit-pickers case. He ruled that when women do the same work as men, they should be paid the same rate. This was to prevent employers from hiring cheaper female labor.
View the 1919 Clothing Trades Case poster from the exhibition (pdf)
Read the 1919 Clothes Trades case (pdf)
1949–50 Basic Wage Inquiry
During World War II and as Australian troops served overseas, women at home increasingly took on ‘men’s jobs’. This caused a problem for legislators and the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration because women employed in men’s jobs were paid much lower wage rates than the men they ha...
Read MoreDuring World War II and as Australian troops served overseas, women at home increasingly took on ‘men’s jobs’. This caused a problem for legislators and the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration because women employed in men’s jobs were paid much lower wage rates than the men they had replaced.
In 1942 the government created the Women's Employment Board under the National Security Regulations. This board could set women's pay rates at 60% to 100% of what men earned, based on how efficient and productive the women were. About 80,000 women or 9% of the female workforce at the time benefited from these decisions.
In 1947 the Commonwealth Government changed the definition of ‘industrial matter’ to include ‘any claim that the same wage shall be paid to persons of either sex performing the same work, or producing the same return of profit or value to their employer’.
In 1949 legislation was passed that allowed for a Full Bench of the Court to set a uniform basic wage for women.
In the Basic Wage Inquiry of 1949-50 the Court rejected pay equity, but decided the female basic wage should be increased to 75% of the male rate.
View the 1949–50 Basic Wage Inquiry poster from the exhibition (pdf)
1969 Equal Pay Case
The 1969 Equal Pay Case was the first of the two major equal pay cases. Before this time, women were paid much less than men because men's wages included a 'breadwinner' component that didn't apply to women.
The push for equal pay came from several factors, including the International Labour Organ...
Read MoreThe 1969 Equal Pay Case was the first of the two major equal pay cases. Before this time, women were paid much less than men because men's wages included a 'breadwinner' component that didn't apply to women.
The push for equal pay came from several factors, including the International Labour Organization Convention on Equal Pay, more women joining the workforce and the end of the Basic Wage in 1967.
The decision stated that women should be paid the same as men when they do the same work. This applied only to jobs seen as 'men's work'.
Equal pay did not apply to jobs usually done by women, even if men could also do those jobs. The ruling said that in cases where men were doing work usually done by women, men were entitled to a higher wage than women doing the same work. The general minimum wage for women was set at 85% of the male wage.
View the 1969 Equal Pay Case poster from the exhibition (pdf)
Read the 1969 Equal Pay Case (pdf)
1972 Equal Pay Case
The 1972 Equal Pay case, the second of the two major equal pay cases, provided for equal pay for work of equal value. The Full Bench hearing the case found that only 18% of women in the workforce received equal pay after the 1969 Equal Pay case decision.
The Bench said that significant changes had...
Read MoreThe 1972 Equal Pay case, the second of the two major equal pay cases, provided for equal pay for work of equal value. The Full Bench hearing the case found that only 18% of women in the workforce received equal pay after the 1969 Equal Pay case decision.
The Bench said that significant changes had occurred since 1969. These changes were reflected in the attitudes of governments in Australia and developments in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and other places.
They decided that the idea of equal pay for equal work had become too limited. They believed it was time to expand the idea to 'equal pay for work of equal value'. This meant that pay rates for all work should be considered without considering the employee's gender.
The minimum female wage was increased to 100% of the male wage over the following three years.
Some employers tried to avoid the equal pay rulings by reclassifying or renaming women's jobs. This was especially common after the 1972 decision, with one survey finding that over 60% of employers had reclassified women's jobs to a different (and lower) scale compared to men in similar work.
View the 1972 Equal Pay Case poster from the exhibition (pdf)
Read the 1972 Equal Pay Case (pdf)
2022–2024 Work value case - Aged care industry
This case looked at applications to vary wages in three aged care awards.
View the 2022–2024 Work value case poster from the exhibition (pdf)
2023-24 Gender pay equity research
We engaged in a research project about occupational segretation and gender undervaluation. Justice Hatcher, President issued a statement that set out a number of principles and identified modern awards for review following the amendments made by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, B...
Read MoreWe engaged in a research project about occupational segretation and gender undervaluation. Justice Hatcher, President issued a statement that set out a number of principles and identified modern awards for review following the amendments made by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022.
Read the Stage 2 report (pdf)
2024 Gender-based Undervaluation Review
In 2024, we decided to review five modern awards. The review was to find out if those awards include undervaluation of the work covered by the award, work mostly done by women, which had resulted in a gender pay gap.
The gender pay gap is the difference in earnings between men and women. It is usu...
Read MoreIn 2024, we decided to review five modern awards. The review was to find out if those awards include undervaluation of the work covered by the award, work mostly done by women, which had resulted in a gender pay gap.
The gender pay gap is the difference in earnings between men and women. It is usually shown either as a ratio of female to male wages, e.g. women earn 87% of what men earn, or as the difference between male and female wages, e.g. 13%.
The gender pay gap can be measured in different ways and in different parts of the workforce. There can be more than one gender pay gap, such as adult average weekly ordinary time earnings, adult average weekly full-time earnings including overtime and bonuses, average weekly total earnings, hourly earnings, industry pay gap, or occupation pay gap.