When new commissioner of taxation Rob Heferen gets the keys to his office on March 1, one of his first urgent matters of business is deciding whether to offer his staff more pay to compensate them for previously forfeited pay rises or rolling the dice on a decision from the full bench of the Fair Work Commission.
As the revenue agency’s staff gradually return to work from their Christmas break, the Taxation Officers’ Branch of the Australian Services Union has referred its dispute over pay to the commission as part of the process to try and get the breakdown in bargaining declared intractable and then arbitrated.
It’s a development that illustrates not all staff in agencies are thrilled with the pay deal offered to them as it stands, especially those who held a firm line against the Coalition’s removal of conditions and entitlements and forfeited pay rises as a result.
The argument is pretty simple. Other agencies who traded away their conditions got them restored when Labor regained power, while Tax staff kept their conditions, but copped a financial hit they now want addressed in this bargaining round.
It’s worth noting that the thrashing out of the ASU’s catch-up claim is separate from the 11.2% figure for the current enterprise agreement that the Australian Public Service Commission got over the line with the Community and Public Sector Union at the end of last year.
“The ASU yesterday referred our dispute over the inadequacy of the ATO’s pay proposal to the Fair Work Commission (FWC),” ASU Taxation Officers’ Branch secretary Jeff Lapidos said in communications to members.
“This aspect of the dispute process requires the FWC to convene a conference of the parties and seek to conciliate between us. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth will not authorise the ATO to make a higher pay offer at this stage. It is likely that the ATO will put its proposal for a new ATO Enterprise Agreement, which incorporates the current pay proposal, to a vote of all ATO staff from APS 1 to EL2 in February 2024.
“We will need to get a NO vote to be able to advance the dispute through the ‘Intractable Bargaining Dispute’ provisions towards the FWC arbitrating on our legitimate pay claim.”
The ASU’s members have already voted down the public service-wide pay offer as it stands in a membership vote in mid-December where 67% of members voted and 71% of those rejected the offer.
It’s understood the ATO will now look to put the current APS-wide offer to a staff vote with an ‘access’ or consideration period of seven days commencing and including 13 February and closing 19 February and a vote on the offer conducted between the seven days between February 20 and February 27.
The ATO has lost those votes before.
The timing also suggests current ATO commissioner Chris Jordan is rather diplomatically trying to clear his desk so successor Heferen gets off to a smooth start, given Jordan leaves on February 29.
“The only part of our pay claim which remains in dispute is the following.
“A catch-up pay increase to make up for employees’ lost salary increases as a result of us being forced to vote NO three times to then Coalition government-mandated cuts in our workplace rights before we were able to negotiate the 2017 Agreement. This is to equal 2% compounding for each year between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2017, a total of 6.12%,” Lapidos told members.
“Lump sum payments equal to the salary forgone as a result of the three-year delay in making the 2017 ATO Enterprise Agreement. 2% for each full financial year from 2014-15 until 2022-23 or 8 years at 2%, a total of 16%; a further 2% for each year from 2015-16 until 2022-23 or 7 years at 2%, a total of 14%; another 2% for each year from 2016-17 until 2022-23 at 2% for 6 years, a total of 12%. These lump sum payments total 42% of each employee’s salary. Employees who joined the ATO after 2014 would have their lump sum payments adjusted pro-rata.”
As the Health Services Union has proved in New South Wales, a proficient fighting union across the detail can get further than some ministers expect.
Incoming APS leaders taking the reins after a change of government are not unknown to move senior executives around to reflect the policy demands of the government of the day.
Given Labor is in power, and generally prefers highly profitable private ventures to pay their way to achieve structural sustainability, the idea of the ATO leaching even more talent to tax estate poachers could sit uncomfortably in Treasury.
The Department of Finance is the normal handbrake on expenditure, but if wage restraint starts costing revenue collection, that’s a lot more awkward.
The problem for Treasury and Heferen is that businesses and consultants poach a lot harder if they feel they need to actively and legally defend their position, rather than put the usual lobbyists on the gravy train.
Many in Labor are still scarred from how easily proposed mining and resources super profits taxes were eviscerated and weaponised when it was last in power. Labor also needs to fund the Stage 3 tax cuts. The money has to come from somewhere and a deficiency in collection capacity would look rather awkward.
Tactically, the ASU’s dispute is being run in such a manner that it won’t affect other agencies if it wins. It was also probably predictable that organised taxation officers would take a forensic interest in recouping what they left on the table to hold the line.
The ASU has always made it clear it was prepared to play the long game on negotiations and would not be rushed into half-cut deals.
Welcome back to the flexible workplace. When did you say Tammy is back on deck?
READ MORE:
Any feedback or news tips? Here’s where to contact the relevant team.