The Australian Library Journal

The librarians' pay equity case 2002 - not just a pay rise

Kate Burnham

Manuscript received January 2004

This essay was a joint winner of the 2003 Jean Arnot Fellowship with that by Irene Bonella. Irene's essay was published here in November 2003.

This paper aims to consider the impact of the issues covered in the case and the possible value of the outcome to the profession as a whole rather than as a successful wage case for certain public sector library workers in NSW; an analysis of the thinking and development behind the Public Service Association (PSA) application and the arguments as they developed during the hearings will be discussed. The post-decision negotiations between the parties on the substance of the award within the structure laid down by the decision will also be analysed from a participant's point of view. The author was a participant in the PSA application and the Pay Equity Inquiry preceding it.

The applications and the decision brought to a conclusion six years of work by members of the PSA employed in libraries to rectify what they saw as a long-term inequitable wage and career structure. The duration of the case from the first directions hearing on 27 March 2001, saw for the first time a full judicial consideration of most of the aspects that affect library workers in the workforce. Issues of pay were certainly at the forefront, but in presenting their case, the PSA traversed the meaning of 'profession' and how it applies to librarianship, the role of professional organisations, the awards conferred by the educational institutions, the impact of information technology and a real and practical look at the work performed. In effect, it was a work value case.

First steps

In 1996, librarians and library technicians at the State Library of New South Wales PSA Workplace Group met and resolved to actively pursue a new award firstly within the PSA and then with the employer through whatever avenues were appropriate. A general meeting of members was held in December 1996 and this meeting resolved to:

1. Establish a Library Industry Advisory Group, and from that group establish a Working Party to pursue the award as allowable under the PSA rules.
2. Directed the Working Party to draft an award for submission to the employers for discussion.
3. Place equal emphasis on wage rates and classification structures.
4. Draft a single award for library technicians, librarians and archivists in TAFE, State Library of NSW, State Records and government departments.[2]

Armed with these instructions from the members, and with approval from the PSA to be established as a Working Party under the rules, it, with elected representatives from librarians and library technicians at the State Library, archivists from State Records, librarians and technicians from government department libraries and librarians from public hospitals[3] set about establishing the principles from which the proposals would be developed.

The Working Party began with discussions on what was wrong with the existing awards and agreements and then in more detail looked at why existing and past wage fixing systems had failed to rectify the glaring problems so readily acknowledged by many library employers, the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), and, from time-to-time, the PSA.

The Working Party from the first was able to share the details of the history (and up till now failed) efforts at changing the way things were for library workers in the NSW public service through the combined knowledge of the participants. The group also regularly held meetings of members to discuss the development of the application and to get the first hand input that was to prove to be so important during the hearings. Additionally, as so many campaign and lobby groups now know, the existence of e-mail enabled accurate, timely and far-reaching communication amongst members at a fraction of the time and effort of face-to-face and hard-copy document transfer methods. This use of e-mail was, surprisingly not reflected in communications with the PSA until the latter part of the case.

At the same time, two significant opportunities were about to present themselves which gave a 'window of opportunity'. Firstly, the announcement of an inquiry into pay equity by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission[4] before Glynn, J, and that a 'Section 19' review of all awards was to take place.[5] The first event resulted in a significant boost to the Working Party's claims and the second did not in the end provide any significant opportunity because of the progress already being made towards an application by the Working Party.

Pay Equity Inquiry 1998

This Inquiry was probably the most significant event leading to the library workers' successful claim. The Inquiry came about via vigorous lobbying of the Carr Labour Government by various government (such as the Women's Employment Bureau DIR and the Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment [ODEOPE]) community and political groups campaigning on behalf of women such as the National Pay Equity Coalition, the Women's Electoral Lobby and the Business and Professional Women's Association (NSW). Leading women within the Australian Labor Party and the government caucus also supported the concept, carried forward the lobbying, and a commitment was given by the government to proceed with the Inquiry.

Within the terms of reference, the Inquiry chose to concentrate on a select number of female-dominated classifications in both the public and private sectors. An officer of the PSA, Jane Timbrell, who was also the representative on the Pay Equity Taskforce (made up of Labour Council representatives and the government) to consider ways of approaching pay equity, suggested, with the concurrence of the PSA's general secretary, Janet Good, herself a librarian of note, that librarians were a suitable case study. Jane Timbrell, through her work as Women's Industrial Officer, and in the negotiations for an enterprise agreement in the Department of Agriculture, which included thirteen library staff, was aware of some of the issues of concern. It was clear even at this early stage that the librarians had a definable and quantifiable case to present. The full-text of the results of the Inquiry can be read in the report, however for the purposes of this paper it is enough to know that the issues that were canvassed by the Inquiry provided the platform for the subsequent library case.

The significance of librarians as a group within the Inquiry was enhanced by the submission of a report[6] by the ODEOPE. This NSW Public Sector case study compared the work value and remuneration of librarians and geologists. This report has provided a factual comparison using a number of job evaluation methodologies as well as drawing together a comparative historical 'time line' of the development of the classification of librarian and geoscientist within the NSW public sector and as a result its usefulness went beyond the Pay Equity Inquiry and on into the pay case.

The key issues from the Inquiry that were to support the pay case (apart from the Recommendations and subsequent principle[7]) were:

• comparison of qualifications at entry level,
• available wage rates in the comparator groups
• recognition of librarianship as a profession
• various systems within the public sector used to determine wage rates including job evaluation and,

(18) ...an assessment of the value of work of librarians should be conducted [and] the undervaluation ...identified. This assessment should be carried out presumably with the full co-operation of both parties, under the new principle which I shall recommend....[8]

The making of the Equal Remuneration Principle[9] opened the door - this was the best opportunity since 1985[10] for the group to pursue a claim, and with the PSA undertaking to support the claim and all of the groups who had laid the groundwork hoping that a case could be mounted, and the Working Party determined to pursue their case, the claim went forward.

Section 19 review

The Section 19 Review[11] highlighted one of the major problems the Working Party had during the six years from 1996 to the final award being made in 2002. Throughout the case, the Working Party had to not only devise a completely new award containing a fundamentally different structure and salary rates, but had to expend an enormous amount of energy in negotiating the factional complexities of the internal arrangements of the PSA .

While the Working Party was remote from the leadership of the PSA, the senior industrial officer allocated to our matter proved to be difficult to work with in terms of the conflict between our 'honorary' role and our full-time jobs and the paid official role that was the full-time job for that officer. The Working Party members were all fully employed and carried out their work duties as well as the intensive work for the case over the six-year period and there was often conflict over simple matters of forward planning and meeting schedules to maintain the goodwill of employers and colleagues for the commitment required. It was also of some concern to the Working Party that despite there being a specialist Women's Industrial Officer and the PSA Women's Council which had existed in some form or other since 1932, the matter was allocated to an industrial officer with no known specialist expertise in matters of pay equity or for that matter library workers.

It is a well-documented fact[12] that trade unions are a very male-dominated and difficult environment for women trade unionists who usually have to fight two battles: firstly, to be heard within the union and then, having fought that battle, to go forward to the industrial matter that brought them together in the first place, and never being able to relinquish the first battle. It is important to note here that, in the end, the Working Party had to maintain constant vigilance over the PSA officials to prevent a watering down or soft-option approach to what was a complex matter. This vigilance was doubly difficult, given the passionate commitment of the Working Party to the claim, and the conflict involved in trying to get the best outcome while avoiding disagreements with the PSA leadership who were, after all, paying for the case.[13]

These difficulties added a further burden to the Working Party in that fast action was required to analyse incoming documents received at the last minute, vetting of outgoing documents, and keeping track of activities and meeting times when no notice was given. It must be acknowledged that the Working Party members and the negotiating team of Leon Parissi, TAFE, Sau Foster from the State Library of New South Wales and myself owe a huge debt to our colleagues for filling in for us in the workplace while we were absent - a real test of everybody's skills and commitment. The Working Party knew the Section 19 review would be looking at the library and archives awards and agreements but was not advised of the event until afterwards and therefore had no input into the outcome which created a temporary but nevertheless worrying problem for library workers. The IRC had, on learning of the preparations for the application, agreed to leave the instruments in their current format with updates to include anti-discrimination compliance, et cetera while pending the outcome of the planned application.

With no input [!] from the members in the discipline, the PSA agreed to an amended version of the 1985 award which had the starting rates for librarians stipulate that a graduate librarian commenced on Year 2 of the seven-year scale and that non-graduate librarians (still in the workforce, although diminishing in numbers since 1985) commenced on Year 1 of the scale, to one in which all librarians at base grade commenced on Year 1. This was not understood by the industrial officer who thought the original clauses were no longer required and despite months of remonstrances by the Working Party failed to rectify the change, so that in the approximately two years between lodgment and finalisation of the pay case, librarians commencing on this grade were further disadvantaged by the already inadequate award. This did not encourage the Working Party's confidence and we redoubled our vigilance to ensure nothing was lost in the ongoing conflict that characterised the relationship between the industrial officer and the negotiating team.

The framework of the PSA claim

By directing the Working Party to place equal emphasis on career path and salary, the membership gave the Working Party a task that was much more complex than a simple pay rise, although this too would have been a major undertaking under the Equal Remuneration principle. The industrial officer regularly pressured the group to reduce their claim to a wage rise in order to expedite matters: however the Working Party was working at the direction of the members in this and understood the single opportunity the case represented.

After comparing other public sector professional awards[14] such as legal officers, scientific officers, psychologists and the generic departmental professional officers classification the Working Party came to the conclusion that the contrasts identified already in the ODEOPE report[15] were fairly consistent with these other groups.

In coming to grips with the existing system the Working Party drew the conclusion that despite there being a range of grades and pay rates available, the complete absence of any criteria for each grade had resulted in an unwritten set of 'rules' that further repressed gradings and wage rates within the available instruments. These 'rules' are almost impossible to prove but seemed to rest on notions of supervision and financial expenditure which, when considered within the framework of the Working Party's brief, were illogical at best and at worst completely ignored the specialist and very specific skills of the occupation.

The Working Party conjectured (and based on their own collective knowledge and experience) that in the absence of any guidance within the existing industrial instruments, employers had used criteria that were culturally appropriate in clerical positions to grade library positions even though there was really no commonality in the work performed. The responsibility for this rested with library managements, non-library managements and library workers themselves who did not question this approach in any concerted way. The only explanation that could be contemplated was that there were no other criteria available: but no definitive reason can be cited.

This concept of ignoring the specifics of library work in favour of the more readily understood activities of a clerical job had also occurred over a variety of wage fixing systems and even into enterprise bargaining. Most notably, the application of job evaluation systems within the public sector continued to present major difficulties for professional classifications which resulted in public sector organisations trying to make jobs fit the system rather than the system fit the jobs. The effectiveness of job evaluation came up repeatedly in the Inquiry, the case hearings and the decision. The general view was that job evaluation as practised in the NSW public sector cannot of itself deliver pay equity due to the effect of the job evaluation tool, the 'points to grade' table which is based on the existing award or agreement, and is only effective where there are enough workers in the one classification to justify its implementation.[17]

The Working Party, in looking for a tool to assist employers in determining appropriate grades for jobs, decided on the idea of grade descriptors that would be contained within the award and could be used regardless of the workplace size, or the individual or networked nature of the service being delivered. The key criteria would cover skill levels, responsibilities, outcomes and organisational impact. For job evaluation practitioners these terms are familiar but in devising grade-level descriptors, the Working Party had to grapple with a level of 'word-smithing' that few had attempted before.

The Working Party had a number of all-day sessions in groups to come up with the text of the descriptors, and in doing so, a platform of qualifications acceptable to ALIA was agreed as the determiner of acceptance into the classification at all levels. The existing Crown Librarians Award[18] had this criterion but neither the archivists nor the library technicians had this factor included, despite efforts in the early 1980s by the library technicians. Some of these activists were members of the Working Party, once more emphasising the value of the cultural memory available to the group throughout the proceedings.

The style of wording in the job descriptors was based on the ALIA Work-level guidelines and other papers from various vocational education and training organisations, but eventually it was the shared experience and skill that produced the final documents for lodgement.

Salary rates were left for a later stage except for a recognition that it would be consistent with the scale of Common Salary Points which covered the equivalent of the Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers Salaries) Award Grades 1-12. This part of the process was the province of the Working Party with no input from PSA industrial staff.

First negotiations

Once the basic framework of the application was agreed to, the Working Party requested that the PSA contact the Public Employment Office (PEO) to discuss the proposal with them. A number of meetings took place over 1998, 1999 and 2000 with what was to become the negotiating team of Leon Parissi, Sau Foster and myself, the PSA industrial officer and representatives of the State Library of New South Wales, and State Records management.

The first hurdle was that the PSA proposed that they were intending to lodge one award for all three groups to cover all those covered by the existing awards and agreements. Initially, there was reluctance on the part of the employers to accept this based on the desire to increase the number of enterprise agreements - this was a particular interest of the State Library management. In discussing these issues, the State Library representatives (from State Library Human Resources) asked what conditions would be up for negotiation, placing on the table flexible working hours and penalty rates. This set the scene for the Working Party to express their understanding of the proposed application which was to redress past inequities not a standard trade-off negotiation.

Ultimately, the PEO contacted all relevant departments and employing authorities requesting a view on whether they were prepared to accept an across-the-service award (as currently existed) or to move towards enterprise arrangements. Overwhelmingly, respondents did not want the bother of negotiating library staff wages and preferred a centralised system. This represented the final part of the pre-application interaction with the PEO until the lodgement of the application on 22 December 2000.

Finalisation of the application

In preparing the application to be lodged, based on the decisions already prepared by the Working Party and ratified by the membership at general meetings, the negotiating party commenced discussions with the PSA's solicitor, Conrad Staff from Staff Jones and Co and a barrister Adam Hatcher from the chambers of H B Higgins.

In commencing these discussions the team had for the first time to present their case, and the basis of their application in-depth to an audience that, whilst it had expert knowledge of the industrial framework in which we were working, lacked in-depth knowledge of the occupation of librarianship and of the idiosyncrasies of the NSW public service. This was a salutary and lengthy exercise for all of us and it was an excellent dress rehearsal for what was to come during the hearings. The topics that required intense explanatory and supporting reasoning were:

1. Why ALIA was the best determiner of qualifications as opposed to union or employer approval?
2. How was the proposed grading structure devised and were the comparators acceptable and logical?
3. What would be the consequences of not having an across-the-board award, including whether we should have separate awards for archivists, librarians and library technicians?
4. How had the history of these classifications developed and what was a typical career pattern?
5. How did job evaluation work in principle and in practice in the workplace, and what were the industrial agreements for the process?
6. How did we see the grade descriptors being applied in practice?
7. What salary rates did we see as appropriate (these were not decided until just prior to lodgement)?
8. How were we going to establish the gender-based inequities? [Despite the Pay Equity Inquiry, this would have to be established for the purposes of the application]

In this pre-hearing conferencing it became very clear to us that our ability to analyse and support our view to the barrister and in our submissions to the IRC would be crucial to the success of the case.

Lodgement of the applications

In lodging our application on 22 December 2000, we made history by being the first application under the Equal Remuneration Principle in NSW. This meant that there were no precedents to draw upon so that from this point on we were in unknown territory. What we did know, however, was that many employers (including the State Library of New South Wales) were supportive of the application in so far as they agreed that library workers needed to redress the aberrations of their classifications[19]. We also knew from the advice of the barrister and the solicitor that we would in effect be conducting a work value case for library and archives workers and that this was a process that was understood. Prior to the first directions hearing, the employer applications were lodged.

On 27 March 2001, a 'directions hearing' commenced before Wright, J, president of the IRC and a number of important matters were resolved. Firstly, an argument was mounted as to the need for the matter to be heard by the full bench. This would ensure that the outcome could not be appealed, and it was something of a gamble, but the ongoing recognition by all parties that there was a case to consider helped in the successful conclusion to this opening argument. In addition, the bench recognised that there existed areas of agreement and that discussions should continue to try and increase these prior to the commencement of the hearings proper.

Lastly, a decision to carry out site inspections was made and the selection of sites agreed upon: the significance of these inspections became clear during the hearings and final submissions when members of the bench demonstrated, in the questioning of counsel and in their decision, complete comprehension of the activities and skills involved. The site inspections were held at the State Library of New South Wales, the Attorney General's Library, State Records, Sydney Institute of Technology and Petersham Campus and the technical services branch of TAFE Library Services. The hearings were set down for 6-15 November 2001. The interim period was an intense period of further discussions between the parties and the preparation of evidence.

The interim discussions

A number of meetings were held in which the negotiating team explained in depth the thinking behind the PSA application, and the PEO to a lesser extent explained their approach. What was clear was that while there were fundamental differences in coverage and criteria and the issue of job evaluation versus job descriptors, the proposed structures were fairly similar in approach. This was very encouraging. The negotiating team for the PEO now had on board Mary Jane Gleeson, team leader, Workplace Development in the State Library. Although not a library practitioner, she proved to have a very perceptive understanding of award development and workplace application and in combination with the PEO team, the PSA negotiating team was able to discuss all matters in a very positive environment.

The areas of disagreement were as follows:

1. ALIA definitions as the determinant as against those of a departmental head.
2. Grade descriptors or job evaluation?
3. Hard or soft barriers in grade progression?
4. One award or four?
5. The separation of technician and professional career paths.

Gathering of evidence

Here it is relevant to mention that the collaborative culture of library and archives workers was crucial in the delivery of high quality and relevant evidence. E-mail again was instrumental in a call for witnesses and dozens of colleagues submitted written statements for assessment by the negotiating team and forwarding to Adam Hatcher, the barrister. What became evident was that colleagues who had not previously been involved were passionate enough and sufficiently cognisant of the issues to put themselves forward to support the case. Eventually, as can be seen from the list of witnesses, a representative cross-section of the library and archives workforce participated.[20] A crucial witness was Marie Murphy from ALIA, who outlined the history, educative and philosophical roles of ALIA in the development of the profession in Australia; Phil Teece, industrial officer of ALIA gave continuing support throughout its duration. Their submissions ballasted the PSA application.

Commencement of the hearings

After completion of the site inspections (which involved some twenty participants including the bench, their associates, solicitors and barristers for each party, court reporters and representatives) the hearings were opened before Justice Boland sitting as the full bench. Media coverage was intense on the opening day with television, radio and print media all interested in the issues of pay equity for appellants generally considered to be conservative rather than left-wing industrial activists. (While the PEO applications were not too far removed from that of the PSA it should be noted that TAFE had lodged an application that proposed an entirely different outcome by arguing for the deletion of the classification altogether and reliance on a generic 'learning resource officer' designation comprising a variety of skills and not really connected to library work as it is generally understood. The concept of different needs figured very largely in their approach however, interestingly, unlike the PEO, the concept of grade descriptors was also proposed in this application).

The hearings

From the opening statements through to the final witnesses the questioning followed a series of concepts, some of which had already been canvassed in the pre-hearing discussions:

1. The competing positions of one award against four awards and how this would affect workers across organisations with differing pay scales and employment criteria.
2. The role of ALIA in the determination of qualifications and practice.
3. The efficacy of job evaluation as against grade descriptors.
4. The nature of librarianship and whether it constituted a profession in the accepted community understanding of the word.
5. The work patterns and career paths of the witnesses, as well as their current employment experiences.
6. Changes in the nature of work undertaken with an emphasis on the impact of information technology.

The full transcript of the hearings is compelling reading, but as someone who was there I was impressed and moved at the absolute commitment of witnesses to their service-based profession, their skills and highly specialised knowledge, in a poorly-remunerated and largely unrecognised occupation. Witnesses for the employers were largely laypeople. A highlight was the discussion between the bench and the barristers on the effectiveness and application of job evaluation: it was here that some previously unquestioned issues came to the fore as once again the ineffectiveness of job evaluation in anything other than a maintenance of the status quo became evident.[21]

Final submissions

On 3-4 December 2001, final submissions were heard before the full bench and in addition an intervention by the National Pay Equity Coalition (NPEC) was tendered. This submission drew together issues of the PSA and PEO applications, the adequacy of job evaluations and was highly critical of the TAFE application. The submission also went into some detail regarding the skills crucial to library work and responses to the challenge of information technology. Finally the submission drew on the broader issues of gender and pay equity to add weight to the PSA's application.[22] It was at these final submissions that all that had gone before was drawn together into a synopsis of each application: accompanied by in-depth questioning from the bench on some of the assertions made by the applicants. It was also the time during the case where there was a clear demonstration of the goodwill engendered during the hearing and acknowledgement of the outstanding work of the legal team.

Because of the intervention by NPEC, the PEO sought an extension of time in presenting their final written submission which would then be followed by the PSA's final written submission. It was with some horror that the Working Party received the PEO final submission the week before Christmas 2001 as it was immediately evident that a serious reworking of the PEO case was being presented to try and rebut what had occurred in the hearings. The PSA Industrial Officer did not seem to grasp the implications of this: but Adam Hatcher certainly did and it is to his credit that he sought and received an extension for the PSA's final submission with the negotiating team providing written and verbal analyses over the festive season. This was an indication of just how well the PSA application had gone that the PEO were prepared to attempt such a revision.

The decision - the interim award

The outcome of the case is now very well known[23] and again there was substantial media coverage of the decision which was delivered at on Thursday 28 March 2002. The Working Party had succeeded in all major aspects of the case:

1. One award was delivered.
2. Librarianship was determined to be a profession in both the employment and sociological sense.
3. The legitimacy of ALIA's role in determining qualifications was acknowledged.
4. The grading structure closely mirrored the PEO application: but this was not markedly different from the PSA application.
5. The transitional arrangements would deliver wage rises averaging sixteen per cent with some going as high as twenty-five per cent.

The parties were directed to confer on:

• the form and content of classification definitions and descriptors;
• how job evaluation might operate;
• how TAFE's need for flexibility could be accommodated;
• what constituted equivalent qualifications; and
• barriers to progression.

To say there was rejoicing in the streets would be an understatement. Six years of unflagging commitment by the Working Party with the members' support had delivered a tremendous result.

The final award

The negotiations for the final award continued until 12 November 2002.[24] This stage of the process was arduous and detailed. The outcome was not well received by TAFE who had not achieved any of their proposals in the interim award. Their approach to the final award negotiations was confrontational and obstructionist. In trying to put together the classification and grade descriptors there was a concerted effort from TAFE to wind back as much as possible the effect of the decision in an attempt to dilute definitions for the classification, negate the role of ALIA and in the final days, trying to word descriptors in such a way as to repress career path opportunities for the greater number of librarians within the structure. However the Working Party did not deviate from its original position and in the end this prevailed in the final award. The only real variation was that in the establishment of the new award all previous increment dates of affected officers were reset to the operative 29 March date. This was a small compromise compared with the rest of the achievement.

The impact

In the ongoing analysis and implementation of the new award it is clear that many issues raised by the case deserve closer understanding and that only time will deliver the final judgment on the new award.

In the negative:

• Since the decision, there have been no further applications under the principle although groups such as child care workers, nurses and library workers in other parts of the public sector are rumoured to be preparing to either achieve flow-on or make new applications. These other groups face issues such as capacity of the industry to pay and the ability (and willingness) of representative organisations to fund the cost of a claim.
• The capacity to pay has not been entirely absent from the library case as only TAFE and the State Library of New South Wales have so far received supplementary funding for the wage increases. Other departments such as the Attorney General's have not received additional funding and the thirty-eight library staff are feeling vulnerable as a new 'review of library services' is mooted.
• ALIA has received a boost to its status but this in turn means that this may be seen by some to be restrictive by entrenching the terms 'library', 'librarians' and 'library technicians' in this landmark award.
• Understanding of how the grade descriptors are to be applied is minimal and members of the Working Party are still engaged in advising members how they could be applied in their organisation.
• The flow-on to library workers under enterprise agreements or other awards has proven to be difficult with each application having to be hard fought on a case-by-case basis.
• There is still no substantial reconsideration by the PSA of job evaluation although the decision was very critical of the system and left the way open for some review.
• The conflict that continued throughout the case between some members of the Working Party and the officials and leadership of the PSA has continued in the PSA's refusal to acknowledge those individuals who showed such commitment, determination and sheer tenacity in winning the fight.

On the positive side

• There is a very real achievement in the outcome in terms of wages and career paths for library workers covered by the new award and a landmark precedent set for other library workers to follow.
• A precedent has been set in pay equity that will have far-reaching effects and relevance for groups outside of libraries.
• The profile of library workers has risen in prominence and the extent to which it is understood in the industrial context.
• There is a new understanding within the profession of what can be achieved.
• The realisation that understanding the industrial system and the ability to articulate skills and worth is paramount in any application.

It is a tribute to all the individuals involved that they were able to seize the opportunities delivered by the pay equity campaigners, that the PSA, despite the differences with some individuals, was able to recognise the possibilities and be prepared to fund the case and that the legal team was of the very highest calibre. In addition it is recognised that there was a spirit of goodwill amongst most of the parties which laid the groundwork for considerable agreement before the case proper commenced.

The outcome of the case will continue to be analysed over the next few years but as the industrial environment continues to evolve in the face of political attitudes, government and expediency, it will be interesting to look at it again in ten years time to see how the 2002 award fares in this female-dominated profession and whether pay equity has truly been delivered.

References

1. Industrial Reports Crown Librarians Award (2002) 111 IR 48 p53
2. Minutes of the PSA General Meeting of library members December 1996
3. Note that the hospital librarians were transferred from PSA to the Health and Research Employees Association (HREA) as part of the resolution of a demarcation dispute between the two unions. In Schmidt, J 29 May 1998 Matter No. 6733/1997, 6735/1997.
4. Pay Equity Inquiry (unreported 97/6320, 14 December 1998)
5. NSW Industrial Relations Act 1996 No 17 Section 19 Review of Awards.
6. Fruin, Di Pay equity case study: librarians and geologists, ODEOPE, February 1998
7. Re: Equal remuneration principle (2000) 97 IR 177
8. op cit [4]
9. Re: Equal remuneration principle (2000) 97 IR 177
10. Crown Employees (Librarians) Award (unreported, 243 IG 823)
11. op cit [5]
12. A selection of some of the resources:
    Carol O'Donnell and Philippa Hall Getting equal: labour market regulation and women's work. Sydney Allen & Unwin 1988.
    Kathie Muir Strength in numbers: increasing women's representation in unions. 1994 Centre for Labour Studies University of Adelaide.
    Fran Gale 'A comfortable kind of union?' Australian Quarterly Autumn 1990 vol 62 nº 1 pp15-20
    Danny Blackman and Linda Carruthers, Report requested by the Women's Council of the Public Service Association of NSW on matters relating to women's employment in the NSW public service and statutory authorities in relation to overall questions on union structure
13. Final 'hearsay' estimates of the cost were about $100 000
14. Re: Crown Librarians Award 111 IR 48 paragraphs 18-23
15. op cit [6]
16. op cit [1] paragraph 100
17. op cit [1] paragraph 100
18. op cit [10]
19. op cit [1] paragraph 53
20. op cit [1] paragraph 13
21. op cit [1] paragraph 6, paragraph 91-120
22. Submission by National Pay Equity Coalition, The Women's Electoral Lobby (NSW) and The Business and Professional Women's Association (NSW) presented by Dr Susan Jamieson
23. op cit [1]
24. Crown Employees (Librarians, Library Assistants, Library Technicians and Archivists) Award 2002. 07/02/03 Volume 338, Part 3, AIRC C1729 !623

Biographical information

Kate Burnham received the Library Practice Certificate of NSW TAFE in 1976. She completed her BA (Librarianship) from Charles Sturt University in 1987 and has worked in libraries since 1973. She is currently the library manager at the Attorney General's Department, NSW and has completed a nine-month secondment as quality manager there. She has been seconded to her union as an organiser, and also taught the Library Practice Diploma in NSW TAFE for three years. She has chaired the NSW Public Service Association Library Industry Working Party for the Pay Equity claim since 1996 and been a major contributor to the development of the claim and the direction of the case, as well as leading the negotiations during and after the decision. Kate has written papers, delivered talks and spread the word at every opportunity for the claim and the development of the classification within the NSW Public Service.