Pay Claims
The Court frequently deals with industrial relations disputes involving claims by trade unions for increases in pay.
The Court’s approach is generally to recommend pay increases, where this is justifiable and sustainable. Such a recommendation represents the Court’s best estimation, having listened to the parties, of what will settle their pay dispute. A pay recommendation from the Court can never be interpreted as a reflection of what the Court believes to be an appropriate pay rate,simpliciter. The Court does not, of its own volition, engage in analysis and consideration of economic data and form a view as to what level of pay increase is appropriate in the economy generally at any given time.
Were the question to be posed,“what increase is the Court recommending these days….what’s the going rate from the Court?"The answer is, quite simply….there isn’t such a thing. Neither does the Court engage in research and compile and maintain data on pay rates, to be consulted when deciding on a recommendation. The Court’s expertise is in the area of dispute resolution, not research and economics. In short, while the Court is aware of trends in pay determination in the economy generally, it does not set rates of pay, but rather it assists parties by giving its opinion as to how their pay dispute should be settled.
When parties seek the Court’s opinion as to how their pay dispute should be settled, the Court considers that particular pay dispute on its own merits, having regard to, and only to, the information and arguments advanced by the parties and the particular circumstances applying in that employment.
Arguments advanced by the parties typically relate to (but are not confined to):
- The economic, commercial and competitiveness circumstances of the employer, including inability/ability to pay;
- Detail of comparable pay settlements outlined by one or both parties within the relevant sector of the economy or geographical area;
- Detail of other grade, group or category pay settlements within the employment or a related employer, as outlined by one or both parties;
- Pay progression and bargaining history within the employment, including matters such as periods of pay pause, periods of retrenchment;
- The employer’s pay position relative to the market as contended for by one party or the other;
- Any other enterprise or industry specific matter one side or the other submits as being relevant.
The Court will seek to understand the evolution of the dispute and the respective positions of the parties. When the parties come to the Court, the lifecycle of the dispute by that point will have reached a level of maturity, having been through local level efforts at resolution, followed by further assisted efforts under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission.
The parties will typically, at that stage, have a high level of familiarity with each other’s positions. However, the Court will, crucially, want to understand the parties’ views of each other’s positions, including the potential impact of the union’s claim on the economic and commercial circumstances of the employment and the impact of the employer’s position on the circumstances of the workers making the claim.
Only when it has a full understanding of the positions of the parties, together with a level of insight into the potential impact any recommended pay increase might have, will the Court be in a position to formulate a recommendation which is reflective of the particular circumstances of the employment which has come before it.
Ultimately the Court’s effort is to form an opinion, based on the written and oral submissions of the parties, on the merits of the parties’ pay dispute and the terms on which it should be settled, and no more than that.
