How much are judges paid and why - the importance of judicial remuneration

Have you ever wondered how much judges are paid? Have you ever wondered why they get paid this amount? In this blog post I examine judicial salaries in major Australian federal and state courts and explain the reasons why judges receive high rates of pay. Note that this blog post focuses on salary only. Judges receive a number of other benefits under salary packaging, so the base rate of salary does not reflect full entitlements.

A.      IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL SALARY

Judicial salary, like judicial tenure, is an important component of ensuring judicial independence. I am referring to judicial independence in two contexts:

1.       Judicial independence as a component of the separation of powers

In a pure execution of the separation of powers, the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government are separate in operation and influence. In practise, due to the mixed adoption of American and British government systems at Federation, the executive and legislative arms of government in Australia are not separate. However, the judicial arm of government is separate from the executive arm and the legislative arm, an essential component of the separation of powers in Australia (Attorney-General (Cth) v The Queen (1957) 95 CLR 529, 540-1). In the Boilmakers Case (R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 270) the High Court held that the Constitution facilitates this separation by ensuring:

                -judicial power can only be vested in a Chapter III Court; and

                -non-judicial powers cannot be vested in a Chapter III Court.  

Judicial salary assists judges to operate separately from government. While judges are appointed by the executive, judicial salary is set by the relevant independent remuneration tribunal.

2.       Judicial independence as a component of the rule of law

One pillar of the rule of law is that the law is applied equally and fairly so that no-one is above the law. As the judiciary enforce the law, it is essential that they remain independent to enable the law to be applied consistently and fairly. High judicial salaries assist with judicial independence as a judge is less likely to succumb to bribery or corruption when they earn a large amount through their ordinary salary.

While judicial salaries may appear high, many judges take a pay cut when they commence their office as a judge. Many judges are appointed from the Bar where it is not uncommon for a Queens Counsel or Senior Counsel to earn upward of $500,000 annually. On appointment, these lawyers take a $100,000+ pay cut. The judicial salary needs to be high enough to attract Australia’s most experienced and lawyers and protect judicial independence while not being too excessive, as judges’ are paid by the government from taxpayer’s money.

B. CURRENT SALARIES OF SELECT FEDERAL AND STATE COURT JUDGES

High Court

Current salary:

Chief Justice $536,070

Judge $486,480

Law behind the salary:

Section 12 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth) provides that the Chief Justice and Justices of the High Court shall receive salary and allowances fixed by Parliament from time to time. Parliament created the Remuneration Tribunal and gave the Remuneration Tribunal the power to determine salary, allowances and other matters for office holders including judicial offices (s.7 Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (Cth)). The current salary of High Court judges is set out in the current determination, “Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2015/10 Judicial and Related Offices - Remuneration and Allowances”.

Federal Court

Current salary:

Chief Justice $453,960

Judge $412,550

The law behind the salary:

Section 9 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that the Chief Justice and judges of the Federal Court are to receive the salary and allowances as fixed from time to time by Parliament. Parliament created the Remuneration Tribunal and gave the Remuneration Tribunal the power to determine salary, allowances and other matters for office holders including judicial offices (s.7 Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (Cth)). The current salary of Federal Court judges is set out in the current determination, “Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2015/10 Judicial and Related Offices - Remuneration and Allowances”.

Victorian Supreme Court

Current salary:

Chief Justice $465,548

Judge $412,550

The law behind the salary:

Section 82 of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) states that the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges of the Supreme Court are to be paid at the rate applicable under the Judicial Salaries Act 2004 (Vic). Section 4(4) of the Judicial Salaries Act 2004 (Vic) states that Supreme Court judges are to be paid the salary payable to Federal Court judges under s.9 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). $412,500 is the current salary payable to Federal Court judges, so Supreme Court judges in Victoria will be paid this amount. Under ss. 4 and 6 of the Judicial Salaries Act 2004 (Vic) the Chief Justice is entitled to 112.86% of the salary of a Supreme Court Judge. 112.86% of $412,500 is $465,548.

Victorian County Court (District Court)

Current salary:

Chief Judge $412,550

Judge $357,433

The law behind the salary:

Section 10 of the County Court Act 1958 (Vic) states that judges are to be paid in accordance with the Judicial Salaries Act 2004 (Vic). Sections 4 and 6 of the Judicial Salaries Act 2004 combined provide that County Court judges are entitled to a proportion of the annual salary of a Supreme Court judge. The Chief Judge of the County Court is entitled to 100% of the rate of a Supreme Court judge. This is $412,550. A judge of the County Court is entitled to 86.64% of the rate of a Supreme Court judge. This is $357,433.

NSW Supreme Court

Current salary:

Chief Justice $482,470

Judge $431,160

The law behind the salary:

Section 29 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) provides that judges are entitled to remuneration in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 (NSW). Section 13 of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act provides that the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal (SOORT) is to make annual determinations on remuneration to be paid to judges and other specified office holders. The relevant determination is SOORT’s “2015 Annual Determination for Judges and Magistrates”.

NSW District Court

Current salary:

Chief Judge $431,160

Judge $386,160

The law behind the salary:

Section 15 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) provides that judges are entitled to remuneration in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 (NSW). The Chief Judge of the District Court is entitled to the same remuneration as a judge of the Supreme Court (s.15A District Court Act 1973 (NSW). Section 13 of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act provides that the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal (SOORT) is to make annual determinations on remuneration to be paid to judges and other specified office holders. The relevant determination is SOORT’s 2015 Annual Determination for Judges and Magistrates.

SA Supreme Court

Current salary:

Chief Justice $462,020

Judge $412,550

The law behind the salary:

Section 12 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) provides that the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court are entitled to salary and allowances at rates determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The relevant Remuneration Tribunal determination is Determination 9/2014 which provides salaries and allowances in Determination 5/2013 shall continue to apply. The current salary noted above is taken from Determination 5/2013.

SA District Court

Current salary:

Chief Judge $412,550

Judge $364,320

The law behind the salary:

Section 13 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) provides that the Chief Justice and judges of the District Court are entitled to salary and allowances at rates determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The relevant Remuneration Tribunal determination is Determination 9/2014 which provides salaries and allowances in Determination 5/2013 shall continue to apply.

Lessons to learn from Finberg v Efron [2015] FCCA 2470 – underpaid law student takes employer to court

The exploitation of law students in an increasingly competitive graduate environment is a growing issue. In Finberg v Efron [2015] FCCA 2470, a law student successfully took the law firm he worked at to court for underpayments and other breaches of the Legal Services Award 2010 (LS Award) and the Fair Work Act 2009.

Facts

Saul Finberg was a Melbourne law student who worked at a small law firm Efron and Associates run by a sole practitioner Graeme Efron whilst studying his final year of his Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts. Finberg worked at Efron and Associates for almost a year from 5 March 2013 to 7 February 2014. Finberg commenced action for underpaid wages, among other things in mid-2014.

What did the law student claim?

Like most law students working in a quasi-legal capacity at a law firm whilst studying, Finberg was covered by the LS Award. See this previous blog post for a summary of the LS Award - http://lawgradinpink.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/law-graduates-and-paralegal-working.html . Finberg claimed the following:

1.       Unpaid wages under clause 14 of the LS Award;

2.       Unpaid superannuation contributions in accordance with clause 23 of the LS Award;

3.       Unpaid annual leave loadings on accrued annual leave in accordance with clause 23 of the Award;

4.       Unpaid accrued annual leave and annual leave loading which was meant to be paid out when the employment terminated.

These four items amounted to a sum of $28,882.83. Interest on this amount was also claimed.

In addition, Finberg also brought action under the Fair Work Act 2009 for breaches of:

1. s.536 – failure to provide payslips with prescribed content and in the prescribed form; and

2. s.535 – failure to maintain employee records in accordance with the Fair Work Act and Regulations.

The employer’s behaviour

Efron and Associates’ initial behaviour was abysmal. The law firm denied the law student was even employed by them and claimed the law student was on a work experience placement. By the time the final hearing occurred, the employer had conceded the law student was an employee and that the LS Award applied.

Consideration by the Federal Circuit Court

1.       Breach of LS Award and Fair Work Act 2009

Judge Jones first considered which classification in Schedule B to the LS Award the law student fell under. The employment relationship had commenced after the law student approached Efron and Associates with a view to gaining experience in a law firm. The law student was given a range of administrative tasks and legal tasks which required legal knowledge and the application of legal skills. The dispute between parties concerned the award classification the law student was employed under, as there was disagreement about the extent of legal tasks performed, and the level of legal skill required.

Judge Jones came to the view that while the law student prepared legal research memoranda and briefs to Counsel, this was limited and involved the exercise of basic legal skills. Any other duties such as attending a property settlement unsupervised, were one off, and still required only basic legal skills. The legal work the law student undertook was of a limited and basic nature.

The employee submitted that his employment was Level 5 – Legal, Clerical and Administrative employee, while the employer asserted Level 2 or Level 3 was the applicable level. Judge Jones decided the appropriate classification was Level 4 – Legal, Clerical and Administrative employee, as the law student’s legal skills best fitted this category, and the employee was able to initiate research and engage in some tasks such as preparing Court books and maintaining files in a reasonably independent way.  Judge Jones then looked at the breaches of the Award:

A.      Minimum pay

Finberg was initially paid $9.62 an hour, until June 2013 when he was paid $10.13 an hour. The current minimum rate of pay under the LS Award for Level 4, Legal, Clerical and Administrative for a part-time employee is $22.32 per hour. This hourly rate would have been slightly less when Finberg was employed at Efron and Associates, but what Finberg received would still have been gross underpayment.

B.      Superannuation

As the employee was grossly underpaid, superannuation contributions were also below the amount required under clause 23 of the LS Award.

C.      Annual leave

Finberg was entitled to be paid out for accrued annual leave under s.90(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the annual leave loading that accrued under clause 35.3 of the Award.  

2.       Breach of s.535 failure to maintain employee records

Section 535 requires an employer to make and keep for 7 years employee records of the kind prescribed in the regulations. Judge Jones was not presented with any probative evidence by the employer that s.535 had been complied with, so made the inference that s.535 had been breached.

3.       Breach of s.536 failure to provide employee pay slips

Finberg was not provided with any payslips until June 2013, which is a clear breach of s.536 which provides “an employer must give a pay slip to each of its employees within one working day of paying an amount to the employee in relation to the performance of work”.

Law student had to pay the employer’s costs for Application in a Case for summary judgment

The costs question related to an Application in a Case heard by the court on 26 August 2014. The Application in a Case was an application for summary judgment under s.17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999. Section 17A sets a very high bar for summary judgment to be made. The Court must be satisfied that the defendant has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or part of the proceeding. While the section states “no reasonable prospect of success” does not necessarily mean “hopeless” or “bound to fail”, the threshold for obtaining a summary judgment is high. On 26 August 2014 Judge Jones determined that there was not sufficient information to find there were no reasonable prospects of the law firm successfully defending the proceedings, and there was evidence that needed to be ventilated at trial. The law firm then pursued a costs order, under s.570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 which provides a party may be ordered to pay costs only if the court is satisfied that:

(a)    the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or

(b)   the party’s unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs.

The Federal Circuit Court found (b) was satisfied. Key issues were in dispute, such as the classification of the employee, duties performed by the employee, and it could not be said the law firm had no reasonable prospects of success of defending proceedings. The law student had to pay $1,706 in costs for the Application in a Case. The law student was represented, and could potentially commence action in professional negligence against the law firm who advised to file an Application in a Case for summary judgment.

Outcome

The parties were to negotiate consent orders reflecting the breaches found by Judge Jones and the law student was to pay the employer $1,706 for the erroneous Application in a Case.

Lessons to learn

·         Do not assume you are being paid correctly by your employer. If you are working in a clerical or paralegal capacity while studying it is likely you are covered by the LS Award. To calculate rates of pay, you can use the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Pay Calculator http://calculate.fairwork.gov.au/findyouraward.

·         Read the LS Award and understand what your entitlements are. For example, if you are covered by the LS Award and are working a full day, you are entitled to a meal break of between 30 minutes and 60 minutes (clause33).

·         Do not assume that because you are a law student you will be able to successfully manage a case against your employer yourself. The Fair Work Ombudsman can commence litigation on your behalf using their enforcement jurisdiction.

·         Applications for summary judgment are rarely successful and should only be made if certain you will pass the threshold test, as it is likely costs will be awarded against you if your claim is unsuccessful. 

·         In dealing with breaches of s.535, failure to maintain employee records, the Federal Circuit Court used the fact that pay slips were not provided to the employee and the fact the employer provided no evidence to the contrary despite being put on notice to conclude s.535 had been breached. This appears to be a reverse onus of proof on the employer which is not reflected in the wording of s.535.

This blog post does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you are in a situation where you have been underpaid you should seek your own independent legal advice. 

Law graduates and paralegal working conditions – a summary of your rights under the Legal Services Award 2010

Introduction

Despite receiving a legal education, many law graduates and paralegals do not know what their entitlements at work are. Paralegals and graduates are among the most vulnerable workers in the legal industry. In recent years, with the increased competition for paralegal and graduate positions, employers have had even more opportunity to exploit junior staff. While most law firms ensure they follow award conditions, there are some firms who either choose to ignore their legal obligations or are never brought before the Fair Work Commission because their paralegals or graduates don’t even realise they are being exploited. Labour Law is not currently a compulsory subject at law school. Hopefully this blog post will help fill the gap, so that graduates and paralegals can understand their rights at work.

Am I covered by the Legal Services Award 2010?

If you are a paralegal or a graduate lawyer anywhere in Australia, it is highly likely you are covered by the Legal Services Award 2010 (“Award”) unless you are employed at a community legal centre, aboriginal legal service or are working for an employer where the provision of legal services is not the primary activity (ie working in-house as a paralegal for a bank). You will only be covered by the Legal Services Award 2010 if you fit the strict definitions:

1.       Paralegal

The type of work you do as a paralegal will affect your classification in the award. Whether you are classified as a “legal clerical and administrative employee” or a “law clerk” will affect the minimum amount you are paid under the award. If you predominantly undertake administrative work like filing, typing and photocopying, you are more likely to be classified as a “legal clerical and administrative employee”. If most of your time as a paralegal is spent preparing documents, interviewing clients and generally assisting a barrister or solicitor, you are more likely to be classified as a “law clerk” which is a higher level paid position under the Legal Services Award 2010.

Law Clerk is defined as “a clerk who is engaged for the major part of their time in interviewing clients, preparing documents and general work assisting a barrister or solicitor in their practice, but will not include account clerks, law graduates, titles office clerks, receptionists and employees principally engaged in word processing, computer use, filing, machine operation, switchboard, delivery of documents or duties of a routine nature”.

Most paralegal positions law students work in involve both administrative tasks and quasi-legal tasks like preparing court documents. The minimum level of pay you will receive depends on the nature of your position and relevant classification under the award:

Level 1—Legal clerical and administrative employee	$733.00
Level 2—Legal clerical and administrative employee	$764.90
Level 3—Legal clerical and administrative employee	$807.90
Level 4—Legal clerical and administrative employee	$848.30
Level 5—Legal clerical and administrative employee	$882.80
Level 5—Law graduate	$882.80
Level 6—Law clerk	$935.80

This is the weekly minimum amount for an employee engaged on a full time basis. If you are a casual employee you must receive at least at 25% loading. This loading attempts to compensate for leave and other rights you would be entitled to if you were a permanent employee. To calculate your hourly rate as a casual, divide the relevant weekly rate by 38 (the ordinary weekly working hours) and then add 25%. If you are a casual employee you must be engaged by your employer or paid for four hours minimum that day. So if you only work 2 hours, you should still receive four hours of pay.

2.       Graduate lawyer

Graduate lawyer is defined in the Legal Services Award 2010 as “a lawyer not admitted to practice but who is undertaking a period of training within a law firm with the view to being admitted to practice”. It is therefore possible for some graduates to be covered and other graduates to miss out being covered by the Award. To be classified as a “law graduate” and come under the Legal Services Award 2010 you must:

1.       Not yet be admitted; and

2.       Be undertaking a period of training within a firm with the view to being admitted.

This definition does not cover admitted graduates. Admitted graduates should read the paragraph below. If you fit the definition of “law graduate” in the Legal Services Award 2010, your minimum weekly wage is $882.50.

What if I am admitted or a more experienced lawyer?

Admitted lawyers and more experienced lawyers who are employed in the legal industry are not covered by the Legal Services Award 2010 or any award. While these lawyers are entitled to the National Employment Standards, a set of minimum standards for annual leave, sick leave, and other entitlements, lawyers must otherwise negotiate their own working conditions. The Legal Services Award 2010 does not currently cover lawyers who have progressed past graduate level. The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union has made an application to vary the Legal Services Award 2010 to cover employed lawyers and address the issue of unreasonable work hours. Don’t hold your breath for this change to go through. If you happen to be covered by the Legal Services Award 2010, enjoy the benefits while they last.

What rights do I have under the Legal Services Award 2010?

1.       Minimum wage

The Award specifies a minimum weekly wage for full time employees and a casual loading of 25% for casual employees (see above).

2.       Employer must provide you with access to the Award

Clause 5 of the Award states that employers must ensure copies of the Award and National Employment Standards are available to relevant employees either via a conveniently located noticeboard or through electronic means. In my experience, it is rare for an employer in the legal industry to be aware of this obligation to provide their staff with access to the Award. When I began my job as a graduate, though my contract references the relevant award, I was never provided with a copy or shown how to access to award electronically. You have to pick your battles though, and I would forego bringing this up with your employer if you have bigger issues like not getting overtime rates.

3.       Maximum number of hours worked

Worker can work a maximum of 152 ordinary hours in 28 days. A worker can be required to work more than this, but the pay must be at overtime rates.

4.       Overtime rates

If you work outside of the 7am to 6:30pm timeframe, you are to be paid the overtime rates of one and a half times for the first three hours and double time thereafter. When working overtime, employers must “wherever reasonably practicable” give you 10 hours between when you finish and start for the next day. In practice, this rarely happens. If your overtime work concludes when “reasonable means of transport is not reasonably available”, the employer must pay or reimburse the costs of the transportation to get you home. In practice, if you are a law graduate covered by the Award, and you work until 1am, your employer should provide you with a cab charge voucher to get home or reimburse you for the cost of a taxi. Note that overtime conditions can be varied by agreement between you and your employer.

5.       Consultation for roster changes

If the employer proposes to change the regular roster, there is a consultation process required under the Award. This is especially important as a paralegal where you are likely to work to a roster. See clause 8.2 of the Award for further details.

6.       Meal break

You must be provided with a meal break within 5 hours of starting work, lasting 30 minutes to 60 minutes. I don’t think many law firms are aware of the right of paralegals and covered graduate lawyers to a meal break. The Award further states that if you are required to work more than 5 hours without a meal break, you must be paid at time and a half until you do have your meal break. Note there are different meal break provisions for overtime work.

7.       Rest break

If you are covered by the Award you are entitled to two 10 minute breaks during the day.

8.       Leave for study

If you are a law graduate covered by the Award you are entitled to leave with pay for four hours per subject for study and attend exams for your admission to practice course. You are also entitled to leave with pay to attend lectures and classes for your admission to practice course. 

In addition to these rights, you also have the National Employment Standards that specify termination notice, redundancy pay, annual leave, personal leave, and carer s leave.

A note on award flexibility

Some of the conditions in the Award can be altered by agreement between the employer and the employee by written agreement. These conditions include:

1.       Arrangements for when work is performed;

2.       Overtime rates;

3.       Penalty rates;

4.       Allowances; and

5.       Leave loading.

Individual flexibility agreements will only be valid if they pass the “better off overall test”. That is, you as the law graduate or paralegal must be “better off overall” than if you did not enter into the agreement (the test is more nuanced but I am not going to go into it in detail right now). As noted above, only some conditions in the award can be altered. This does not include the minimum weekly pay. While you can negotiate to be paid more than the minimum, you cannot agree to be paid less.

Summary

The first step is to work out of if you are, as a paralegal or law graduate, covered by the Legal Services Award 2010. If you are covered, you are very fortunate, as you have several rights and protections that more experienced lawyers do not have. Your entitlements include meal breaks, overtime rates, and paid leave for study. If you are covered by the Award and are not receiving the working conditions you are permitted to enjoy under the Award, a good first step may be to have a talk with the appropriate Human Resources contact at your law firm. When I was studying my GDLP I was taking unpaid leave for study and to attend class. When I realised I was entitled to paid leave, all it involved was a quick email to HR, and I was reimbursed for that time and received paid leave from that point on. By sharing your knowledge with HR, you are not just benefitting yourself, but other paralegals and law graduates to follow. 

How the Matildas can get a pay rise and negotiate better pay from the FFA

The Matildas have made it through to the quarter finals of the Women’s World Cup. They are playing Japan, the reigning world champions, on June 28. To get there, the Matildas survived a draw from hell including world #2 the United States, African champions Nigeria, world #5 Sweden, and world #7 Brazil. The Matildas are no light weights, currently sitting at #10 on the FIFA World Rankings. FYI the Socceroos currently sit at #63 on the FIFA World Rankings. There has been growing public outcry at the pay disparity between our women’s national team and the men’s national team. Right now is a perfect time for the Matildas to be lobbying for better wages, as their current agreement expires on 31 July 2015. In this blog post, I compare the Matildas and Socceroos collective bargaining agreements and explain how the Matildas can achieve better conditions in their next round of collective bargaining.

Introduction to collective bargaining

Professional footballers in Australia are represented by a union/employee organisation called Professional Footballers Australia (“PFA”). The PFA represents both the Matildas and the Socceroos in collective bargaining. Quite a few players are actively involved in the PFA, and the current Matildas collective bargaining agreement was signed for the PFA by goalkeeping legend Melissa Barbieri, who is currently representing Australia at her fourth World Cup. Collective bargaining is a process governed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) where employers and employees negotiate a collective agreement that outlines aspects of the employment arrangement such as wages, leave, and categories of employment. The PFA represents players in negotiating collective agreements with Football Federation Australia, who engages players for Australia’s national teams. The Matildas and the Socceroos have separate collective agreements. The key provisions in the Matildas collective agreement include provisions on:

·         minimum and maximum player payments

·         medical minimum standards

·         injury payment requirements

·         distribution of prize money

·         grievance and complaint procedures

Why the current Matildas Collective Bargaining Agreement needs an overhaul

Apart from wage issues, there are a number of reasons the Matildas CBA is in need of an overhaul:

1.       Amendments to the original CBA make it difficult for players to identify what their rights are

The original CBA ran from 2010 to 2013. In 2013, instead of creating in a new CBA, the 2013 CBA was amended with a Term Sheet, running from 2013 to 2015. The original CBA continues to operate except to the extent it is inconsistent with a clause in the Term Sheet. This would be ok if all the Matildas players were lawyers and had half a day to work out which terms are displaced. This is not the reality. This form of amendment makes it extremely difficult for players to work out what their rights are. Amendment by Term Sheet may seem like the easier, more cost-effective option at the time, but it can lead to complications and legal disputes over whether a clause has been superseded or not.

2.       Three separate CBAs should be in one agreement

The Socceroos, Matildas and A-League all have separate CBAs. This does not make sense in an industrial relations environment where an employer usually negotiates one CBA or enterprise agreement for all related employees. As the Socceroos, Matildas and A-League players all undertake the same service, being to play soccer, they should all be covered by one agreement. The fact they are in separate agreements screams segregation and indicates an acceptance of different groups of players having different rights. Fortunately, the FFA and FPA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that they will make one agreement covering the Socceroos, Matildas and A-League when the current CBAs expire on 31 July 2015.

3.       Annexures are outdated

The original CBA includes several annexures including a standard player contract. Some of the terms in the contract are very out of date and some key terms usually in an employment contract are not included.

Comparison of Matildas and Socceroos current CBAs

	Matildas	CBA reference	Socceroos	CBA reference
Minimum number of players contracted	20	2.1 (Term Sheet)	Players have strict contractual obligations to clubs. Players are employed on an Assembly basis by FFA. Clubs are provided written notice of the player’s selection for that Assembly.	6 (CBA)
Length of contract	6 months Two contract periods a year	2.2 (Term Sheet)
Notice if contract is not going to be renewed	1 month	2.2 (Term Sheet)
Minimum annual payment	$21,000 ($10,500 per 6 month contract)	3.1(a) (Term Sheet)	Socceroos are engaged on a complicated contractual basis and the pay they receive is calculated using a complicated combination of match payments, daily allowances, bonuses, prize money, and commercial payments. Most of a Socceroos earnings come from commercial payments.	7 CBA
Top up for contracted players	FFA can distribute an additional $75,000 to contracted players, but no contracted player can receive a top up of more than $14,000	3.1(c) (Term Sheet)
Match fee general1	$500	3.1(a)Term Sheet	$6,500	6.1 Term Sheet 1
Match fee	Group match $500 Round of 16 $600 Quarter Final $750 Semi Final $1,250 Finals $1,500	3.2 Term Sheet	Group $7,500 Round of 16 $8,500 Quarter Final $9,500 Semi Final $11,500 Final $17,000	6.1 Term Sheet 1
Daily fee for uncontracted players attending Assembly2	$150	3.1(b)Term Sheet	$240	7.1 Term Sheet 3
Bonuses and prize money	Paid in equal shares to relevant players	5.4 CBA	30% of gross prize money to be paid to players	5.1 Term Sheet 3
Licensing profits	Players receive in equal shares -50% of revenue from team based products -70% of revenue from player based products -50% of revenue from commemorative team produces	5.5 CBA	Similar distribution % to Matildas, but massive estimates of licensing profits, ie $1,056,000 to be distributed between players in 2013/14 FY and FFA guarantees profits ie  $700,000 for 2013/14.	3.2 Term Sheet 3
Provision of equipment	FFA will do its best to provide contracted players with Nike boots, shinguards and uniform	4.1 Term Sheet	FFA must supply all apparel and footwear	4.1(d) CBA
Provision of lounge facilities for travel	FFA will do its best to provide lounge facilities when team is travelling	4.3 Term Sheet	Travel to be business class.	4.1(c) CBA
Accommodation	No specifications		Players to be provided for single rooms at the World Cup and long tours. Accommodation to be five star.	8.1 Term Sheet 1 4.1(c) CBA

¹ This is the amount players receive for being listed on the official match sheet for a game. This fee is paid to contracted and uncontracted players.

²This is the fee uncontracted players receive when they are selected to play for the Matildas in an official match, tournament (official and invitational), training session and team meetings.

I haven’t put too much information in about the Socceroos because their payment system is quite different to the Matildas due to the Socceroos earning significant commercial payments. Socceroos are not contracted to the FFA for 6 month periods like the Matildas are. The data speaks for itself, but I would like to point out in particular:

1.       The general match fee for a Matilda is $500 V $6,500 for a Socceroo;

2.       A Socceroo is paid more to appear in a group match than a Matilda is to appear in a final. Almost seven times more.

3.       Socceroos must be provided with five star accommodation and provided with a single room each. There is no specification in the Matildas CBA about accommodation.

Why this is the opportunity the Matildas have been waiting for

The FFA and PFA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that after the current CBAs expire on 31 July 2015, parties will negotiate a “whole of game” CBA. That is, the Matildas, Socceroos and A-League players will all be covered by one large CBA instead of having separate CBAs. This is a great opportunity for the Matildas, as their current rates of pay will appear ridiculous once directly alongside the Socceroos and A-League rates of pay. They will be able to lobby competitively for better conditions.

It is perfect timing that the Matildas have been very successful in the Womens World Cup. Their profile in Australia is growing and growing, attracting more sponsorship, which will give them more bargaining power. Some Socceroos including Tim Cahill have come forward to support better pay conditions for the Matildas. If the Matildas can get the support of more Socceroos to assist them with their lobbying efforts, they will be able to obtain better collective bargaining outcomes. The media has also jumped on board, covering the severe pay disparity between female and male soccer players.

While I am crossing my fingers and toes for the Matildas to win their quarter final on Saturday, I am also crossing my fingers and toes that the new CBA will bring the Matildas closer to pay equality.