Industrial relations – a fine balance

Over the last few years many members (employees and employers alike) have voiced concerns about the low minimum wages in the national award that covers veterinarians. Economic sustainability is one of our five strategic advocacy policies and adequate remuneration has to be seen as an important part of this policy area.

Last year we undertook some member consultation that supported this view on the Animal Care and Veterinary Services Award. Overall, 98% of employees and 68% of employers said that veterinary associate award rates were too low.

The Fair Work Commission is presently undertaking a 4-yearly review of modern awards and the AVA is participating to represent our members’ views. While we are at the table, and we have submitted our view that minimum wages need to be reviewed, the nature of the industrial relations system means there are some major obstacles to us achieving the outcomes we are seeking. Dr Debbie Neutze, who has been coordinating our work in this area, neatly described it as “feeling like we are walking through a minefield on a tightrope.”

The Australian industrial relations process is fundamentally adversarial, as unions and employer bodies clearly represent either employees or employers. The process usually involves an ambit claim from one of the groups, opposition from the other and a compromise position being reached via negotiation or mediation, or if these fail, arbitration.

The AVA occupies an odd and rather invidious position in this system. We have far more ‘interest’ in the Award than any other organisation, but we are not an employer body or a union. We do have broad member support to advocate for an increase in minimum wages, but at the same time we need to be cognisant of the interests of employers and of the potential consequences of salary movement on overall business sustainability. Trying to drive a salary review via an ambit claim on behalf of employees would certainly and justifiably disenfranchise our employer members.

Under legislation governing the 4-yearly review, the Fair Work Commission can only make a determination to vary modern award minimum wages if they are justified by ‘work-value' reasons. It needs to be proven that the nature of the work, the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work or the conditions under which the work is done has significantly changed since the award rates were determined. This work is  really the realm and responsibility of unions and we do not have the industrial relations expertise to undertake it. The union that represents veterinarians, APESMA, agrees there are issues with the Award, but because of the resources needed to present the work value case has declined to take it on.

Although we have put in our submission that the profession believes the minimum wages are too low and need reviewing, the commission has stated that they are comparable to those in many other awards. Lifting the veterinarians’ minimum wages may affect these other awards and as such the commission would be reluctant to alter the rates. Although it is true that other awards’ minimum wages are comparable, often they have penalty and loading rates that mean the overall take-home wage is higher.

However, the Commission looks at the minimum wages without reference, or ‘in exclusion’, to other provisions within an award. A call for the review of minimum wages is central to the AVA’s submission and we are also advocating for the inclusion of pro rata professional development leave for part-time employees, clarification of public holiday rates, standardisation of public holiday rates across all veterinary practice employees at 250% of the minimum wage, clarification within the Award around the payment for travel time while on a call back, and clearer definition of interns and internships.

We should all remember that award rates are a safety net. They are the minimum that must be paid, they may not be what should be paid and there are many employers who are offering, negotiating and paying higher salaries to their valued and productive employees.

Where to from here? If there is no review of the minimum wages during this process, the AVA will look at other ways to engage with the industrial relations process to benefit all members and the whole veterinary profession. There may, for example, be the option of developing some form of alternative industrial agreement that could be used by AVA member employers and their employees. In the meantime, we’ll continue to walk the tightrope.

Graham Catt
Previous AVA Chief Executive Officer

I don't pay good wages because I have a lot of money; I have a lot of money because I pay good wages.
Robert Bosch, German industrialist, engineer, inventor and founder of Bosch