The Fair Work Commission's Expert Panel orders pay rises in award rates for women-dominant industries

On 16 April 2025, the Fair Work Commission's constituted Expert Panel for pay equity in the care and community sector issued its initial decision in the Gender-based undervaluation – priority awards review.  

In the context of modern awards, gender undervaluation refers to a situation where minimum rates of pay have been established based on an undervaluation of the relevant work due to gender-related reasons. The Review found that certain classifications in five priority awards applicable to women-dominated industries (set out below) have been the subject of gender-based undervaluation, and variations to classifications and related minimum wage rates in those awards are necessary on work value grounds to address those issues.

The Review arose as a consequence of the Albanese Government’s amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) via the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), which included the new equity objective.  The amendments require the Commission to take into account the need to achieve gender equality, including by ensuring equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value and eliminating gender-based undervaluation of work, in setting modern award minimum rates of pay.  

What are work value reasons?

Work value reasons are considered under section 157 of the FW Act, and provide that the Commission may vary modern awards if necessary to achieve the modern awards objective.

"Work value reasons" are reasons justifying the amount that employees should be paid for doing a particular kind of work, being reasons related to any of the following:

• the nature of the work;

• the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work;

• the conditions under which the work is done.

The Commission's consideration of work value reasons must:

• be free of assumptions based on gender; and

• include consideration of whether historically the work has been undervalued because of assumptions based on gender.

The Commission may make a determination or modern award under section 157 of the FW Act on its own initiative, or on application, which can be made by an employer, employee, or an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more employers or employees that is covered by the modern award.

The five priority awards

In Annual Wage Review 2023–24 [2024] FWCFB 3500, the Panel determined that the amendments to the FW Act mean that any issues of unequal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value, or gender-based undervaluation relating to modern award minimum wage rates, can no longer be left to be dealt with on an application-by-application basis outside the framework of the annual wage review process – these issues should now be dealt with in the annual wage review process or in other Commission-initiated proceedings between annual wage reviews.

Accordingly, on 7 June 2024, the Commission determined to undertake the Review, on its own initiative, to examine and address gender undervaluation in highly-feminised awards.

After conducting a two-stage research project to identify occupations and industries in which there is gender pay inequity and potential undervaluation of work and qualifications, the Commission determined the awards subject to the Review were to be:

• Pharmacy Industry Award 2020;

• Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 (HPSS Award);

• Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award);

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020 (ATSIHW Award); and

• Children’s Services Award 2010.

How did the Expert Panel make their decision?

The fundamental purpose of the Review was:

• for the Commission to consider whether the minimum award rates prescribed in respect of particular occupational groups covered by the above awards are founded on a proper, gender-neutral assessment of the value of the work performed; and

• if they do not properly reflect work value, whether variations of those minimum award rates are appropriate.

At a high-level, the Expert Panel considered some of the following issues:

• Has the work to which the classifications apply been historically undervalued because of assumptions based on gender?

• Would variations to the minimum wage rates prescribed for the classifications be justified by work value reasons within the meaning of section 157(2A) of the FW Act, and be necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and minimum wages objective in the FW Act?

• Does the work of employees under any of the classifications involve the exercise of ‘invisible’ skills (including gender-related indigenous cultural skills) and/or caring work?

• To the extent that any adjustment to the existing classification structure in any of the awards is required, what are appropriate terms (including classification descriptors and minimum wage rates) for a new or modified classification structure?

• To the extent that any increases to the minimum rates for any classifications are justified by work value reasons in order to remedy gender undervaluation, what is an appropriate implementation timetable for such increases having regard to funding and related issues?

The Expert Panel's orders and provisional views

The Expert Panel found that the following professions have been the subject of gender-based undervaluation:

• pharmacists covered by the Pharmacy Industry Award;

• health professionals, pathology collectors and dental assistants covered by the HPSS Award;

• social and community services employees, crisis accommodation employees and home care employees in disability care covered by the SCHADS Award;

• dental assistants and dental/oral therapists covered by the ATSIHW Award; and

• children’s services employees covered by the Children's Services Award.

These findings constitute work value reasons justifying the variation of the modern award minimum wage rates applying to each category of employees.

In relation to pharmacists, after considering extensive evidence, the Expert Panel determined a 14.1% minimum wage increase is justified to rectify the identified gender-based undervaluation in the Pharmacy Award. This will be implemented in three phases from 30 June 2025, 30 June 2026 and 30 June 2027 respectively.

The Expert Panel considered that "by reason of the current and apparently growing female domination of the occupation, women are disproportionately affected and disadvantaged by it. This effect would be exacerbated if, consistent with the patterns in the labour market as a whole, female pharmacists were more likely to be paid only the minimum award rate than men." Accordingly, the Expert Panel found that this is sufficient to permit the undervaluation to be characterised as gender-based.

For the remaining four priority awards, the decision sets out provisional views on variations to remedy the gender-based undervaluation:

The Commission has invited interested parties to consider its provisional views, and confirmed it will afford any interested parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to those views. The Commission will list conferences to ascertain the nature and scope of any issues which interested parties may wish to raise in response to the provisional views after 3 May 2025.

How will the rulings impact these industries?

The provisional views of the Commission will have significant cost implications for employers in women-dominated industries covered by the priority awards, particularly the private health care and child care sector, as well as those sectors reliant on Commonwealth government funding.

Additionally, these rulings are likely to prompt further gender undervaluation reviews, with unions identifying cases for clothing retail workers, flight cabin crew, hairdressers and receptionists. For example, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation has applied to the Commission to raise minimum rates for 250,000 nurses and midwives, claiming that the role of nurses have been undervalued due to historic gender assumptions.