'One does not break the proverbial glass ceiling by amputating the legs of the men above'
An employer's attempt to resolve gender-based pay concerns by cutting the pay and classification of three male case managers has backfired, with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) finding the move amounted to an unlawful dismissal by demotion.
Commissioner Jennifer Hunt has ruled that long‑serving Intensive Family Support Program (IFSP) case managers were effectively dismissed when the employer unilaterally downgraded them from Level 5 to Level 4 under the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award.
The dispute traces back to the employer's decision in 2018 to restructure its IFSP team, where existing case managers were moved to Level 5 positions, while later hires were brought in as Level 4 "Case Officers."
The three incumbent male Case Managers were told their Level 5 classification and pay would be "grandfathered."
By contrast, the newly hired Case Officers at Level 4 were all women.
"This has resulted in questions regarding gender inequality and pay gaps," the FWC's document reads.
Concerns intensified by late 2024. At a staff event, a female Case Officer directly pressed senior leaders about why some case staff were paid less than others.
Response to pay gap concerns
The employer's response was to top up women's pay by granting the female Case Officers with ex gratia payments of between $10,000 and $12,000 "as a matter of 'fairness and equality' to make up for the difference in their rate of pay."
By June 2025, after what the employer described as a 12‑month classification review, the employees were told their roles had been "incorrectly classified" at Level 5 and would be reclassified as Level 4.
Their pay dropped from about $101,787.51 per annum to $91,598.47, later rising to $94,743 following the national wage increase – a loss variously calculated at between $7,000 and $10,000 a year.
No meaningful consultation took place, according to the employees. The men also rejected the change, refused to sign contract variations, and continued working "under protest," insisting they remained properly classified at Level 5.
The employer maintained that it was committed to lawful and equitable classification practices and that retaining them on Level 5 would undermine "fairness and consistency across the workforce."
Employer's gender pay gap fix
Commissioner Hunt did not rule in favour of the employer's move.
"One does not break the proverbial glass ceiling by amputating the legs of the men above," Hunt said in the decision.
She added that there was "nothing compelling" the employer to move the employees to a Level 4.
"An employer can pay employees at a higher pay grade if it wishes," she said. "There is no breach of the Act or the Award in continuing to categorise the applicants as Level 5."
She further described the employer's answer to gender equity concerns as quite disappointing.
"The Respondent's desire to ensure an equitable pay grade and remuneration among its employees… has resulted in the Respondent tearing the applicants down instead of honouring the common law contract it had with them."
The demotion, combined with the substantial pay cut and the unilateral abandonment of the grandfathering promise, meant their original employment contracts had been ended on the employer's initiative, according to the FWC.
"I am satisfied that each applicant has been dismissed at the initiative of the Respondent and the demotion of each of the applicants resulted in a significant reduction in their remuneration," Hunt concluded.
