Gender, Employment Benefits and Industrial Relations in Australia

Transcription

1 IIRA World Congress, Berlin, September Gender and Industrial Relations Network Gender, Employment Benefits and Industrial Relations in Australia Marian Baird* and John Burgess** * Discipline of Work and Organisational studies, University of Sydney, Australia. **Employment Studies Centre, University of Newcastle, Australia. Contact Details: John Burgess Employment Studies Centre University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Ph Fax john.burgess@newcastle.edu.au Abstract While much of the discussion of gender inequality in the labour market has centred on pay equity there has been extensive gender inequality in terms of the construction of and access to non wage benefits through employment. Typically non-wage benefit access in Australia has been associated with the full-time employed male breadwinner model of employment. In itself this has resulted in the exclusion of many women workers from non wage benefits but it has also meant that benefits are aligned to a particular family structure and assigned gender roles within this family structure. While there has been a sustained campaign for achieving gender pay equity in Australia for more than 30 years, in contrast non wage benefit access and equality for women workers remains relatively neglected by trade unions and in public policy discussion. The decentralisation of the industrial relations system from the late 1980s was supposed to deliver family friendly employment arrangements, including non wage benefits. We argue that such an agenda is partial, inequitable and flawed. Throughout 2002 there has been a public debate over access to and funding of paid maternity leave in Australia and this in itself has raised the issue of gender equity in the construction of and access to non wage benefits of employment. In this paper we demonstrate the gender inequality of access and the gender bias in the construction of the non wage benefits system in Australia. The paper considers how a trade union campaign and a public policy agenda can be developed that promotes gender equity in benefit access and in the construction of benefits that better meets the aspirations and the needs of women workers. 1

2 Introduction Muc h of the discussion of gender inequality in the labour market in Australia has centred on pay equity. As the most recent statistics indicate, there is good reason for this. Despite equal pay legislation, the latest Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that there is still a gender wage gap and also suggest that this is widening again (Catalogue ). The figures, based on trend full-time adult ordinary time earnings, show that in February 2003 women were earning 84.3 cents in the male dollar. One year earlier, women were earning 84.7 cents to the male dollar (seasonally adjusted figures are 84.6 and 84.2). Over the year , men s full-time adult ordinary times earnings rose by 4.9 per cent whereas women s rose by 4.4 per cent. While this outcome is unsatisfactory and of great concern, the gendered outcomes of the Australian industrial relations system do not stop with pay. In the area of non wage benefits and entitlements, the gendered outcomes are even greater. It is the gendered outcomes of employment entitlements, specifically the inequitable, limited and partial access to paid maternity leave that is the focus of this paper. Since the late 1980s the Australian industrial relations system has changed significantly. Current arrangements emphasize decentralization of process and result in fragmentation of outcomes. These changes were introduced at the same time as women s participation in paid workforce was on the rise. The move to a greater workplace and enterprise focus was supposed to deliver family friendly outcomes, but this has not necessarily been the case (Strachan and Burgess, 2000). Instead of rectifying inequities in employment conditions and assisting workers in balancing their work, family and social obligations, the policy agenda of successive federal governments has focused on increasing organisational efficiency and flexibility. Balancing work and family has become individualised within the bargaining regime and it has been placed within the context of a restricted business case agenda for such benefits (Charlesworth et al, 2002). Within this political economy context it is important to also recognise the dominance of the male agenda in industrial relations research and the need to mainstream gender issues (Pocock, 1997; Forrest, 1993; Rubery and Fagan, 1995; Wajcman, 2000). Moving the consideration of women from the periphery to the centre, however, is not a simple task and requires a multi-stranded approach (Crompton, 1997). How many strands do we need to consider? In order to understand the conditions, constraints and choices that shape work for approximately fifty per cent of the workforce, it is necessary to recognise and analyse the interconnectedness of three strands or spheres of women s work the household, the workplace and society. In particular, the issue of paid maternity leave that is discussed in this paper, highlights the need to pursue equal opportunity in employment and welfare policy (Rubery et al., 1998). This is especially relevant in countries, like Australia, where the male breadwinner 2

3 model has dominated our thinking and policy making. In the past, industrial relations policies were largely structured for and by men, and this is very noticeable in terms of non-wage benefits as well as pay outcomes. Furthermore, the institutions which framed these policies, the state, the unions, the employer associations and the industrial tribunals, were largely constituted of men. Through the analysis of paid maternity leave, an issue that brings together the various strands that impact on women s work experience, we also have to construct an industrial relations agenda so that it is inclusive of women s needs and interests. We begin the paper with a brief overview of the erosion of the male bread winner model in Australia. This is followed by an overview of entitlements in Australia and the current gendered nature of them and their availability. The paper then outlines current maternity entitlements in Australia and considers prospects for improvement through a change in public policy or a trade union campaign. The erosion of the traditional male breadwinner model Over the last two decades the participation rates of women and men have altered significantly in Australia. The participation rates of women are climbing, while men s are declining (Charlesworth et al, 2002:21). Sixty-seven per cent of Australian women now work, which is up from 47 per cent twenty years ago. By contrast, 77 per cent of men work, down from 82 per cent twenty years ago. Women now constitute approximately 42 per cent of the unionized workforce, up from 37 per cent ten years ago. Importantly for the discussion on paid maternity leave which follows, 70 per cent of women in the prime child bearing years (25-34) are in the paid workforce, and their participation rate almost matches the participation rates of males in that age group. Through time-use analysis, Bittman and Rice (2002) argue that the male breadwinner model, that is, with the husband in full-time work and the wife at home, is no longer the predominant household pattern in Australia. It was on the basis that such domestic arrangements were the norm, that pay and conditions were set in Australia for the last century and were most famously institutionalized in the Harvester Case wage decision of For the 21 st century Bittman and Rice (2002) demonstrate that the dual career couple, with both male and female partners in full time work, is the predominant form of the couple household. This is followed by the husband full-time work and the wife part-time work model. The least common pattern is the full-time male worker with the non-employed wife. Analysis of the part-time participation rates of women shows a slightly more complex picture of the changes that the male breadwinner model has undergone in Australia. Although rates of female labour force participation have increased markedly, this has largely been into part-time employment. Thus, in 2000, while the female partner in couple families with dependents was employed in 61 per cent of cases, this was in full-time employment in only 26 per cent of these households, compared with 85 per cent of cases for the male partner (ABS 3

4 : 19-20). The pattern is most marked in couple families with very young dependents (0-4 years). Women were in full-time employment in only 18 per cent of these cases. These figures clearly show the gendered nature of work and domestic arrangements. It is mothers, not fathers, who predominantly work part-time, and who maintain primary responsibility for domestic labour. These figures do show that in the last twenty-five years women have increased their overall - paid and unpaid - working hours. However, as the next section of the paper demonstrates, not only are the arrangements gendered, so too is access to the entitlements and benefits attached to paid employment. Generally women do not have access to the same employment entitlements and benefits as men, nor do they have access to specific entitlements that would assist them in balancing their work and family demands, such as child care and paid maternity leave (Burgess and Baird, 2003). We suggest that this is largely because the industrial agenda and the employment outcomes are a reflection of the male paradigm that has dominated since Harvester Man of 1907 (Baird, 2003a). The Gendering of Entitlements In Australia, entitlement coverage is determined by the nature of employment arrangements and the characteristics of the job. ABS data (Cat ) establishes that benefit access is determined by the following characteristics: a. Gender males have greater access than females; b. Length of the working week full-time employees, who tend to be male, have greater access than part-time employees, who tend to be women; c. The employment arrangement greater for permanent employees. Fourteen per cent of men and 44 per cent of women in paid jobs work part-time, while the average for OECD is 26 per cent (Pocock, 2003,.19). Furthermore, two thirds of part time work in Australia is casual (temporary), and women constitute the major part of the casual workforce. d. The broad sector of employment public sector employees have greater access than private sector employees; e. Trade union membership trade union members have greater access than non-union employees; f. Earnings the higher paid have greater access; g. Occupation access to entitlements is greater for managers and professionals h. Industry access to entitlements is very high in mining, utilities, government administration, manufacturing and education. Table 1 lists the benefits available in 1999 as set out in the ABS survey and catalogues these benefits by full-time and part-time employment status. 4

5 Table 1 Employment Benefits 1999 (% of employees covered) Benefit Full Time 1999 Part Time 1999 Total 1999 Superannuation Paid Annual Leave Paid Sick Leave Paid Long Service Leave Goods or services Transport Telephone Holiday expenses Medical Housing Finance Study leave Shares Union dues Electricity Entertainment Club fees Child care/ Education No benefits Source: ABS, Catalogue , Earnings, Benefits and Union Members, August 1999 Table 1 contains a number of points of interest. First, apart from superannuation, holiday, sickness and long-service leave benefits, all other benefits have a low density across the workforce. These four major benefits are referred to by the ABS as standard benefits as they apply to a majority of employees. Second, the benefit density is on average much higher for full-time workers, in part reflecting the relatively high proportion of part-time workers (around two thirds) who are casual (temporary) employees and are thus excluded from benefits in Australia. Third, the legislative support for universal superannuation through the Prices and Incomes Accord ( ) saw a dramatic increase in superannuation coverage across the workforce. This demonstrates that it is possible through legislative means to dramatically increase benefit coverage even to part-time and casual employees. Finally and most importantly for this paper, the benefits are largely outside of those that fit within the work and family agenda (Whitehouse, 2001). Access to child care or education fees support is virtually non existent. Neither paid maternity leave nor paid paternity leave makes the benefit list of the ABS. 5

6 A different picture of benefit arrangements and access emerges if we consider the content of enterprise agreements. Agreement making was intended to supersede awards as the medium for delivering entitlements and for opening up the entitlement agenda in order to better match the needs and aspirations of employees, especially women workers (Sullivan, Strachan and Burgess, 2003). Table 2 lists the entitlement density for certified agreements from the Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations agreements report for Table 2 Benefits in Certified Agreements 2001 Provision Employee Density % Paid Long Service Leave 66 Annual leave 79 Personal/carers leave * 84 Superannuation 74 Parental leave** 36 * Unspecified whether it is paid or unpaid, may be either. Paid personal/carer s leave available by accessing part of paid sick leave available to employee. **Unspecified whether it is paid or unpaid. Department of Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business, 2002, 70 Table 2 refers to certified agreements that cover around 20 per cent of the workforce. Hence the density is misleading. Also, benefits may be available through statutory right or an underlying award but do not receive explicit mention in the agreement. This may explain the relatively low density for superannuation relative to table 1. What is interesting in comparison with table 1 is that carers leave and parental leave have an apparent high density within agreements. However, these may not be fully paid and fully accessible entitlements. Access to such leave may be conditional, the leave may be unpaid or it may represent a repackaging of existing leave arrangements eg annual leave and sick leave. The point of interest is that such leave arrangements have made it into the agreement making agenda albeit in a way that may distort the extent of access and the underlying nature of the benefit. In summary, it is clear that in Australia there is a definite gender aspect to entitlements. This comes about in four ways. First, on average women have less access due to possessing characteristics that are associated with a low benefit density. That is, they are in lower paid positions and in part-time and casual work. Second, these structural disadvantages are translated into the agreementmaking context. It is difficult for many women workers to either secure access to entitlements or to open up the entitlements agenda under the enterprise 6

7 bargaining regime (Sullivan, Strachan and Burgess, 2003). Women often do not have either the voice or the bargaining power to shape the bargaining agenda. Third, entitlements were developed in a context of predominantly male full-time unionised employment where women s labour force attachment was marginal and subordinate to family caring responsibilities. Combining work and family responsibilities and maintaining a career in such a context was not part of the development of the basket of standard entitlements. To develop and gain access to benefits that recognise the employment and reproductive rights and roles of women has been a very difficult task in Australian public policy and industrial relations policy. This is clearly reflected in the lack of universal paid maternity leave rights in Australia. Fourth, where entitlement access is dependent upon continuous service, such as long service leave (Burgess, Strachan and Sullivan, 2002), women are disadvantaged by forced career breaks for child bearing and rearing. This also applies to the near universal self funded retirement provisions associated with superannuation, for many women the experience of discontinuous employment and part-time and temporary employment arrangements means that the superannuation system is non operable (Jefferson and Preston, 2003). Maternity Leave Entitlements in Australia As the discussion above demonstrates, the majority of Australian workers (ie permanent employees) have access to superannuation, paid long service leave, paid annual leave and paid sick leave, but as there is no legislative provision and outcomes under enterprise bargaining have been limited, they do not have guaranteed access to paid maternity leave. Under current arrangements, only some employees are entitled to paid maternity leave. This makes Australia (along with the USA) an unusual case among developed countries and has aroused considerable criticism both within Australia and internationally. In Australia employees have access to 52 weeks unpaid parental leave (Workplace Relations Act 1996). This leave is subject to certain restrictions: employees must have had 12 months continuous service with their employer, the leave is a total period of 52 weeks but is to be shared by the parents, it may be taken by (either or both) parents, it cannot be taken in addition to other parental leave available through awards or State law and it cannot be taken concurrently except for a period of one week at the birth of the child. After parental leave, employees have a right to return to their former job. In 2000 the Australian federal government refused to ratify the ILO Maternity Protection Convention No This decision generated a new round of awareness and debate about the lack of universal access to paid maternity leave in Australia. While the exact proportion is not known, it is estimated that in Australia, some entitlement to paid maternity leave is available to only 7

8 approximately 38 to 40 per cent of female employees (HREOC, 2002b, section 3.3.2). A further complication is that the availability and duration of this leave varies widely. Public sector employees generally have better access and entitlements than private sector employees, although even within this sector there is still considerable variation between the States. No jurisdiction meets the ILO standard of fourteen weeks paid maternity leave (see Table 3). Table 3. Paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector in Australia Jurisdiction No. Weeks Paid Leave Federal 12 weeks Victoria 12 weeks Northern Territory 12 weeks Tasmania 12 weeks New South Wales 9 weeks Queensland 6 weeks South Australia 2 weeks Western Australia* 6 weeks *Western Australian legislation is the exception because it provides for 6 weeks paid parental leave. In the absence of legislative provision, private sector employees in Australia must rely on either collective bargaining (used in the making of industrial awards and enterprise agreements) or voluntary managerial regulation (used in the development of formal and informal company policy) for paid maternity leave entitlements. A very small proportion of federal awards provide for paid maternity leave, and in any case, most of these cover public sector employees (Baird et al 2002), with their award provision replicating the legislation. In terms of enterprise agreements the picture is only slightly better. Research by Baird et al (2002) showed that only 5% of all enterprise agreements (at the state and federal levels) provided for paid maternity leave. Moreover, the amount of leave varied enormously, from 18 weeks to just 2 days in some cases. The 14 weeks recommended by the ILO was available in only a few federal agreements. Employees in the wholesale and retail trade and in cafes and accommodation were least likely to have access to any paid maternity leave, even though these sectors are heavily feminised. Apart from a few well publicized cases, and the federal government s positive endorsement of enterprise bargaining as the best way to provide family friendly arrangements, progress remains patchy. More recently, however, there have been a couple of exceptions. One of these is in the tertiary education sector. Academics employed in Australia s public universities have for some time had access to 12 weeks paid maternity leave following the standard of the federal 8

9 public service. In 2001 the Australian Catholic University offered academics with two year s continuous service, fifty-two weeks paid maternity leave with 12 weeks at full pay and forty weeks at sixty per cent of salary. After the leave the employees must return to work for a period of twenty-six weeks (Baird, 2003a:103). In the current bargaining round, the National Tertiary Education Union has claimed additional paid maternity leave and some other universities have followed suit by agreeing to provide up to 52 weeks paid maternity leave or offering the equivalent in research money female academics returning after maternity leave. In the auto industry, after one major company introduced a new company policy of fourteen weeks paid maternity leave, (which is eight weeks more than the award entitlement), the union has won the same in enterprise bargaining with another of the major auto assemblers. Some flow-on from these cases may be expected, but if past practice is an indication, only of a limited nature and within their respective industries. Despite these initiatives, the highly limited access to paid maternity leave in Australia reflects the highly gendered nature of the provision of non-wage benefits in Australia. If all women workers in Australia are to have the right to paid maternity leave, there remains the need to provide either a legislative standard or extended coverage through awards and enterprise bargains. The prospects for each of these strategies are discussed in the following sections of the paper. Prospects for a Legislative Standard In response to the growing agitation about the lack of universal access to paid maternity leave of a reasonable duration, Australia s Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) undertook a public enquiry canvassing the options for paid maternity leave in Australia (HREOC, 2002a). Following the consultation process, which involved input from private individuals, women s groups, trade unions, business and employer groups, HREOC recommended a scheme for Australia. HREOC proposed a federally funded paid maternity leave scheme to provide for fourteen weeks maternity leave for all working women (inclusive of casual, contract and self-employed women), paid at federal minimum wages (HREOC, 2002b).The shape of the scheme was designed to overcome objections from business, especially small business, that they could not afford to pay for maternity leave. The model proposed by HREOC has a number of positive aspects. These include its inclusiveness and coverage, ensuring that all women, regardless of income, occupation, employment status and union membership, would have access to some, albeit minimum, income compensation while on maternity leave. As the pattern of access has already noted, these are the women most likely to not receive entitlements related to employment in the current system. The main limitation of the scheme, as others such as the National Pay Equity Coalition (NPEC) argue, is the low level of payment. Their preference of these groups is a payment at the level of average wages. 9

10 In all of the debate there has been surprisingly little explicit reference to paid maternity leave as an entitlement or right of working women. To a large degree the argument has been dominated and side-tracked by reference to costs, fertility rates, tax incentives and other maternity and family allowances none of which directly provide for income replacement for working mothers at the time of child birth. Although the HREOC proposal was estimated to cost a relatively minor $215 million per year, despite the government s alleged interest in the issue and the establishment of a work and family task force, the federal government has not acted upon HREOC s recommendations and there remains a vacuum of paid maternity leave policy in Australia. A number of domestic and international events and initiatives have added to the pressure on the federal government to fund such a scheme, yet the federal (and state) governments continue to delay and obfuscate policy development and progress, leaving women at an income disadvantage and carrying the life-time economic costs of their reproductive and mothering roles (Preston, 2003). The Trade Union Campaign The impotence of the current federal government in terms of advancing paid maternity leave rights has left a vacuum of public policy. The other available route for expanding the coverage of paid maternity leave entitlements is through the award structure of the Australian industrial relations system. To do this, however, would necessitate a campaign by the trade union movement. While the trade union movement s agenda has not always included issues that address women s specific needs, there have been some important advances made as a result of Test Cases brought before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) by the union movement s peak council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).Test cases have provided a useful mechanism for extending employment conditions and entitlements beyond particular industries or individual workplaces. In 1979 the ACTU brought the Maternity Leave test case before the AIRC, and succeeded in providing twelve months unpaid maternity leave to all award covered female employees. The significance of the decision also lay in the recognition the AIRC gave to women workers, noting their increasing participation rates in the labour force and the consequent pressures this placed on them in terms of balancing work and family commitments. In 1990, in the Parental Leave Test Case decision, the AIRC extended the right to 52 weeks paid leave to fathers. In 1994 and 1995 the AIRC ruled in favour of family leave. This is not a substitute for paid maternity or paternity leave, but allows employees to access paid annual and sick leave for caring purposes. In 2001, the ACTU, also through a test case in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, was successful in having unpaid maternity leave extended to casuals with more than 12 months service. 10

11 Almost ironically, given the decentralism of the Australian industrial relations system over the last decade, there remains the opportunity to run test cases before the AIRC. There are advantages and disadvantages of conducting test cases; one of the advantages is that if successful the effect would be to provide de facto universal coverage, something that enterprise bargaining has not been able to achieve. Disadvantages also exist. These include the fact that test cases are costly exercises and they arouse strong reactions from opposition groups, in this case employer groups and the federal government. In 2003, the ACTU launched a new Work and Family Test Case claim. This campaign is being conducted in two stages (see Table 4). The first stage focuses on more flexible and extended leave and working arrangements for parents of young children. The second stage (assuming there are no public policy changes in the area) focuses on the introduction of paid maternity and paternity leave and improved carer s leave. Table 4 ACTU Work and Family Test Case Claim Stage Extension of unpaid parental leave; and simultaneous maternity and paternity leave; Employers to consult with employees whilst on unpaid leave; Flexibility for parents in i. organising p/t work until child is school age and ii. place of work; Rights to unpaid leave for family responsibilities for i. emergency leave and ii. school holiday leave Stage 2 - Future 14 weeks paid maternity leave and 2 weeks paid paternity leave; Improved carer s leave - extension of time, greater flexibility in use of existing paid leave, broadening the definition of dependent. Conclusion The paper has discussed and evaluated the gendered nature of the access to, and the characteristics of, employment benefits and entitlements in Australia. The most obvious contemporary example of this being the absence of universal access to paid maternity leave for working women. This is despite the fact that Australian employees have reasonably good conditions when it comes to superannuation, long service leave and paid annual leave (admittedly better for full-time permanent employees than part-time and casual employees). They have had these for some time (Patmore, 2003), but they were largely delivered by and for men. It is also the case that broadly coinciding with the decentralization of the industrial relations system, the participation rates of women in paid work have increased significantly, especially for women in the prime child bearing age 11

12 groups, making the construction of employment wages and conditions around the notion of a the traditional male breadwinner model no longer relevant. Enterprise bargaining, despite claims to the contrary, has not delivered fair conditions for women. Sixty per cent of Australia s working women do not have access to paid maternity leave, making Australia a very poor exemplar of the modern economy and society. There is a clear need to address this situation through either a change in social welfare policy or industrial relations policy. Although both are currently on the agenda in Australia, neither has born fruit thus far. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has recommended a government funded fourteen week paid maternity leave scheme. This would not cost employers anything and would fit with the existing industrial relations framework, but has not received government support or endorsement. The peak union body, the ACTU has also mounted a claim before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to gain more flexible work and leave arrangements for Australian employees in order to help them address their work and family obligations. The second stage would see the claim for fourteen weeks paid maternity leave being made, but it is not clear when this will occur. Both stages of the claim are certain to meet with resistance from employers and the federal government. Not only has the paid maternity leave debate in Australia highlighted the lack of pubic policy in the area and the inequitable treatment of working women, it has also highlighted the need to place women and women s interests as a more central concern in industrial relations research. In order for progress to be made in both research and policy area, it is necessary to integrate knowledge of the three spheres of women s work and well being the home, the workplace and society. References Baird, M. (2003a) Paid maternity Leave: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly Australian Bulletin of Labour, 29(1), Baird M. (2003b) Re-Conceiving Industrial Relations Presidential Address, Annual Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand 5 th February, 2003, forthcoming, Labour and Industry, August. Baird, M., Brennan, D. and Cutcher, L. (2002) A Pregnant Pause: Paid Maternity Leave in Australia, Journal of Labour and Industry, 13(1), Bittman, M. and Rice, J.M. (2002) The Spectre of Overwork: An Analysis of Trends Between 1974 and 1997 Using Australian Time-Use Diaries, Labour and Industry, 12 (3), Burgess, J. and Baird, M. (2003) Employment Entitlements; Development, Access, Flexibility and Protection, Australian Bulletin of Labour, 29(1), Burgess, J., Strachan, G. and Sullivan, A. (2002), Long Service Leave in Australia: Rationale, Application and Policy Issues. Labour and Industry. 13, 1,

13 Charlesworth, S. Campbell, I., Probert, B. et al (2002) Balancing Work and Family: Policy Implementation Options, a report for the Victorian department of Premier and cabinet & Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, RMIT University. Crompton, R. (1997) Women and Work in Modern Britain, Oxford University Press, Oxford. HREOC (2002a) Valuing Parenthood - Options for Paid Maternity Leave: Interim Paper, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney, April HREOC (2002b) A Time to Value; Proposal for a National Paid Maternity Leave Scheme, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney, December. Jefferson, T. and Preston, A. (2003), Bargaining for Welfare: Gender Consequences of Australia s Dual Welfare Model. Australian Bulletin of Labour. 29, 1, Patmore, G. (2003) Legislating for Benefits NSW Australian Bulletin of Labour, 29(1), Pocock, B. (2003) Work Life Collision. Federation Press, Sydney. Pocock, B. (1997) Gender and Australian Industrial Relations Theory and Research Practice, Labour and Industry 8(1), Rubery, J., Smith, M., Fagan, C. and Grimshaw, D. (1998) Women and European Employment, Routledge. Rubery, J. and Fagan, C. (1995) Comparative industrial relations research: towards reversing the gender bias British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33: Strachan, G. and Burgess, J. (2000), The Incompatability of Enterprise Bargaining and Equal Employment Opportunity in Australia. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 38, 3, Sullivan, A., Strachan, G. and Burgess, J. (2003), Women Workers and Enterprise Bargaining. In J. Burgess and D. Macdonald eds. Developments in Enterprise Bargaining. Tertiary Press, Melbourne, Wajcman, J. (2000) Feminism Facing Industrial Relations in Britain British Journal of Industrial Relations 38 (2), Whitehouse, G. (2001), Industrial Agreeements and Work/Family Provisions: Trends and Prospects Under Enterprise Bargaining. Economic and labour Relations Review. 9, 2,