Four yearly review of modern awards - [2018] FWCFB 7621

[2018] FWCFB 7621

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 14 
December 2018.

In the first line of paragraph [123] the word “review” is added after the words “The conduct 
of the 4 yearly”. 

In the first line of paragraph [141] the word “in” after Commission is replaced with “the”.

Error in footnote 78 corrected.

Associate to Vice President Hatcher

Dated 29 August 2019















1

Fair Work Act 2009 
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards - Pharmacy Industry Award 2010
(AM2016/28)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN
COMMISSIONER SPENCER SYDNEY, 14 DECEMBER 2018

Four yearly review of modern awards – Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 – APESMA Work
Value Claim.

Introduction

[1] Pursuant to s 156(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act), the Fair Work 
Commission (the Commission) is required to conduct 4 yearly reviews of all modern awards. 
As part of the 4 yearly review of the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010 (Pharmacy Award), the 
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) has 
made a claim for the variation of the Pharmacy Award pursuant to s 156(3) of the FW Act. 
Section 156(3) permits the variation by the Commission of the minimum wages prescribed in 
a modern award where it is satisfied that this is justified for work value reasons. APESMA’s 
primary claim is for the minimum wages in the Pharmacy Award to be increased by an 
amount necessary to restore what was said to be the proper relativity with the C10 
classification rate now found in the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and 
Occupations Award 2010 (Manufacturing Award). The APESMA’s submissions set out the 
following table explaining its primary claim as follows (noting that the table is based on the
Pharmacy Award rates as they were prior to the 3.5% increase awarded as a result of the 2018 
Annual Wage Review):

Employee

classification under 
Pharmacy Award

The 1996 CPA rate

compared with the
1996 C10 rate in the
Manufacturing Award

Current rates

under the

Pharmacy Award

APESMA’s

claim

Pharmacy
Interns

[2018] FWCFB 7621

DECISION


E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission




 



[2018] FWCFB 7621

2

First Half of
Training

$853.50 130% of current
rate =
$1027.18

Second half of 
training

$882.60 130% of current
rate =
$1046.94

Pharmacist 140% $998.50 140% of current
rate =
$1132.74

Experienced
Pharmacist

150% $1093.50 150% of current
rate =
$1213.65

Pharmacist in
Charge

180% $1119.20 180% of current
rate =
$1456.38

Accredited
Pharmacist

N/A 210% of current
rate =
$1699.11

Pharmacist
Manager

210% $1247.20 210% of current
rate =
$1699.11

[2] In the alternative, the APESMA sought a 25% increase to all wage rates in the 
Pharmacy Award. Both as part of its primary and alternative claims, the APESMA also 
sought a new classification of “Accredited Pharmacist”, to be defined as “a pharmacist who 
is the holder of an Accredited Pharmacist qualification who undertakes professional services 
requiring pharmacist accreditation or credentialing”.

[3] In summary terms, the APESMA contended in support of its claims that there had 
been an increase in the various educational, training and registration requirements for 
pharmacists, which it submitted was indicative of the increase in the skills, knowledge and 
responsibility required to perform the role of a pharmacist. It was also argued that the 
introduction of new types of work (such as professional services) requiring additional skills, 
knowledge and training, comparatively increased responsibility and accountability for 
pharmacists. Finally, it was posited that there had been an overall increase in workload, 
pressure and performance for pharmacists. These changes had occurred, the APESMA
submitted, since the work value of pharmacists was last considered in a decision of the 
Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) issued on 29 June 1998.1 The changes 
relied upon by the APESMA fell into the following five broad categories:

                                               

1 C1790 Dec 727/98 M Print Q2258








[2018] FWCFB 7621

3

 An increase in various educational and registration requirements which are indicative 
of the increase in the skills, knowledge and responsibility required to perform the role 
of a pharmacist.  

 The introduction of additional training so a pharmacist can become and retain 
registration under the legislative requirements for registration of a pharmacist.  

 The introduction of new work that requires additional skills, knowledge and training.

 The introduction of new work that has resulted in an increase in responsibility and 
accountability. 

 An increase in workload and an increase in pressure and on skills and the speed with 
which vital decisions need to be made.

[4] The majority of the changes identified by the APESMA were said to have arisen 
because of changes in government health and medicines policy and industry initiatives 
designed to respond to these changes in government policy and to patient needs. The key 
Federal Government policy changes identified related to the following matters:

 Introduction of the Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) into the National Medicines 
Policy.  

 Medical practitioner shortages, particularly in rural and regional areas.  

 Escalating cost to the Australian tax payer of providing a high quality medical service 
and medicines to the Australian community.  

 Increasing number of patients with multiple chronic diseases requiring complex 
treatment.  

 Introduction of many new highly specialised medicines to the Australian market and 
the extra knowledge required to minimise drug interactions and adverse effects with 
patients.

 Increasing number of medicines being down-scheduled from prescription only status 
to pharmacist-only and pharmacy-only status, and the extra knowledge/skills required 
to safely provide these medicines to the public without a doctor’s review.

[5] The APESMA contended that the introduction of the QUM into the National 
Medicines Policy in 1999 had been the “major instigator” of changes to the role and work of 
the pharmacist; in particular, it had changed the role from being someone who was 
responsible for safely storing and dispensing medicines to a professional playing an 
increasing role as part of a multi-disciplinary health care team providing a wide range of 
preventative and primary health care services. The APESMA pointed to the Community 
Pharmacy Agreements (CPAs) negotiated every five years between the Pharmacy Guild of 
Australia (PGA) and the Commonwealth Government as evidencing the nature of this change 
in the role and work of pharmacists. Particular initiatives affecting the work of pharmacists 
introduced as part of CPAs included Home Medicine Reviews (HMRs), Residential 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

4

Medication Management Reviews (RMMRs), MedsChecks, asthma management and diabetes 
management.

[6] The QUM was introduced into the National Medicines Policy in December 1999. It 
requires all medical professionals, including pharmacists, to select management options 
wisely, choose suitable medicines if a medicine is considered necessary, and use medicines 
safely and effectively. Relevantly, it requires:

 identification and implementation of methods to select and communicate the most 
appropriate medicine or non-medicine option from all available prevention and 
treatment options, so that the individual gains optimal, cost effective health outcomes;

 identification and implementation of methods to monitor the outcome of the selected 
treatment option, to allow rapid modification according to response, so that optimal 
health outcomes are maintained over time;

 provision to patients/consumers of information and counselling to promote quality use 
of medicines; and

 education of peers and adoption of appropriate standards and models of practice.

[7] Home Medicine Reviews are undertaken by Accredited Pharmacists (discussed later) 
upon a referral from a medical practitioner, and usually require the pharmacist to conduct the 
review in the patient’s home and then write a report for the medical practitioner. The 
pharmacist is required to review what prescription, non-prescription and complementary 
medicines the patient is taking and to make recommendations for the medical practitioner to 
discuss with the patient, which might include showing the patient how to take their medicines 
correctly, explaining why and when to take their medicines and what to expect when taking 
them, explaining the proper storage of medicines and what problems should be reported to the 
medical practitioner, checking that the medicines are appropriate to take together and 
changing them if necessary, clarifying any confusion with generic medicines, and assisting 
with the patient remembering to take their medicines. HMRs were introduced as part of the 
third CPA in July 2001, and are intended to reduce the number of persons hospitalised 
because of their use of medicines. RMMRs are similar to HMRs but are provided to 
permanent residents of a government-funded aged care facility, and are conducted in 
collaboration with the resident’s health care team. Like HMRs, RMMRs were introduced as 
part of the third CPA in 2001 and must be conducted by an Accredited Pharmacist.

[8] MedsChecks and Diabetes MedsChecks were introduced under the fifth CPA in 2010, 
and involve a structured in-pharmacy review of a patient’s medicines by a pharmacist.  It 
takes about 30 minutes to complete, aims to help patients learn more about their medicines 
including their effects, proper use and storage and to identify problems patients may be 
experiencing with their medicines, and requires additional training to be undertaken. Diabetes
management is undertaken pursuant to the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), 
which is an initiative of the Australian Government which is administered through registered 
pharmacies. The pharmacist’s role is to provide patients with the equipment and medicines 
they need to manage their medicines as well as educating and counselling them on initiatives 
they can take to reduce or eliminate their diabetes such as through weight loss and exercise.
The pharmacist must have additional knowledge and skills in the management of diabetes, 
which is usually obtained by undertaking an appropriate course delivered by an accredited 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

5

training organisation. As with the NDSS, pharmacies have since 1999 been charged with 
delivering asthma management services to patients with the aim of educating patients on the 
proper use of their inhaler device and to assist them to develop an asthma management plan. 
Pharmacists must obtain specialised training in asthma and its treatment to provide this 
service, with the training usually taking the form of a course delivered by an accredited 
training organisation.

[9] Downscaling from the prescription-only category to the pharmacist-only category has 
occurred with respect to many medicines since 1998, with a total of 33 having been switched 
between 2000 and 2011. With respect to these medicines, the pharmacist is now required to 
diagnose minor illnesses to ensure the patient needs the medicine being requested and to 
determine the appropriate medicine. Prior to dispensing a pharmacist-only medicine the 
pharmacist needs to determine if dispensing the medicine is appropriate or whether the patient 
needs to be referred to a medical practitioner. Pharmacists need to counsel the patient as to the 
illness and educate them on the appropriate use of the medication, and to avoid dispensing 
drugs (such as pseudoephedrine and codeine-based medications) to those who might be 
abusing them. The introduction of generic-based medicines into the Pharmaceutical Benefits 
Scheme (PBS) has also required pharmacies to place heavier reliance upon them for cost 
reasons, which has added to the responsibility of pharmacists to manage the risk of dispensing 
them by ensuring accuracy and compliance. It also requires pharmacists to explain to patients 
the option of using generic medicines, how they may affect them and what the impact and 
cost differences are.

[10] Other instances of new or changed work relied upon by the APESMA were as follows:

 Clinical intervention: This involves the pharmacist identifying a drug-related problem 
with a patient and making recommendations to a medical practitioner to prevent or 
resolve it, including by changing the medication, the means of administration or the 
patient’s medication-taking behaviour. To undertake this service, introduced under the 
fifth CPA in 2010, the pharmacist must have undertaken the required training.

 Dose administration aids: Dose administration aids (DAAs) are adherence devices 
developed to assist medication management by dividing medicines into individual 
doses and arranged according to the dose schedule throughout the day. They may take 
the form of a unit dose or multi-dose pack. Since the fifth CPA in 2010 pharmacists 
have formally provided patients with DAAs, which requires the pharmacist to pack the 
patient’s medicines into a specially-provided bag, with the pharmacist having to 
ensure that each medicine is correctly included in the appropriate pouches on order to 
avoid medical misadventure.

 Staged supply of medicines: This is a program, introduced under the fifth CPA in 
2010, for patients to receive their PBS medicines in instalments, particularly patients 
with mental illness or drug addiction or who otherwise cannot manage their 
medications safely. Pharmacists are required to have additional skills and knowledge 
concerning mental illness, drug dependency, drug seeking behaviours, and interacting 
with and responding to the therapeutic concern of clients.

 Certificates for absence from work: Since the commencement of the FW Act in 2009 
pharmacists have been able to provide certificates for absences from work due to 
illness. Pharmacists who undertake this service must undertake a detailed consultation 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

6

with the patient to determine the nature of their illness, assess how long they will be 
unable to attend work, and determine whether it is necessary to refer the patient to a 
medical practitioner. Pharmacists must have extensive counselling skills and should 
have undertaken additional training in order to provide this service.

 Inoculations: The Pharmacy Board of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation 
Agency (AHPRA) in December 2013 authorised pharmacists to administer 
vaccinations if they had obtained suitable additional training, and the States have since 
enacted legislation to facilitate this occurring. Pharmacists are required to have 
completed a further approved course of study, maintained their authority to immunise, 
and hold a current statement of proficiency in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first 
aid including anaphylaxis training. 

 Increase in use of complementary medicines and vitamins: The increase in the use of 
complementary medicines and use of vitamins has required pharmacists to have 
knowledge of these products, how they affect various illnesses and diseases and any 
negative side effects. Additional training is recommended in these medicines if it was 
not covered in the undergraduate degree.

[11] It was contended by the APESMA that the work environment of pharmacists had 
become more complex due to the following matters:

 Chronic disease: Chronic diseases such as arthritis, asthma, back problems, cancer, 
chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental 
health conditions are the leading cause of illness, disability and death in Australia, and 
39% of persons aged 45 and over have at least 2 of these diseases. Patients with such 
co-morbidities are high users of the health system, and half of them have conditions 
that result in treatment conflict. Pharmacists are involved in not just supplying 
medicines to such patients but ensuring that they get the best out of their medicines 
and their conditions are managed effectively. This requires pharmacists to exercise a 
specific set of clinical knowledge and skills not used back in 1998, as well as social 
pharmacy skills such as communication skills, inter-professional collaboration, 
understanding behaviour and understanding psycho-social attributes.

 Quality Care Pharmacy Program (QCPP): This quality assurance program was 
introduced by the PGA in 2000, and requires pharmacists in QCPP accredited 
pharmacies to undertake mandatory initial training, ongoing refresher training, 
implementing and following appropriate policies, ensuring there is evidence of 
practice in accordance with QCPP standards, and ensuring the pharmacy is prepared 
for re-assessment every 2 years. This imposes additional responsibilities on Pharmacy 
Managers in particular.

 Forward Pharmacy Model of Practice: This model of practice, adopted by almost all 
pharmacies since the introduction of the QUM, makes the pharmacist the main point 
of contact with patients, and requires pharmacists to exercise additional 
communication, counselling and customer skills not previously required of them.

 Workloads: There has been a significant increase in the number of PBS prescriptions 
dispensed within community pharmacies (at the rate of almost 13% per year over the 
last 10-15 years) without any corresponding increase in the number of pharmacies. 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

7

This together with the ageing population, the consequential increase in the number of 
patients taking multiple medicines, and the new work tasks and skills required of 
pharmacists has contributed to an increasing workload and complexity of work for 
pharmacists.

[12] The APESMA also relied on changes to the educational and registration requirements 
for pharmacists. In respect of the former, the changes relied upon were:

 The phasing out from 2000 of the option of undertaking a three year undergraduate 
degree. The minimum accredited undergraduate pharmacy degree now requires four 
years of full-time study.

 Since 2010 the Australian Pharmacy Council has accredited a number of 
undergraduate degrees of more than the minimum four years’ duration which provide 
extended and more intensive training.

 Undergraduate degrees now cover areas of training not covered before 1998, in 
particular in relation to the counselling and education of patients in relation to the 
patient’s diagnosis, the reasons for prescribing, and the safe and effective use of the 
prescribed medicine included any potential adverse effects. This arose largely in 
response to the introduction of the QUM.

 In 2010, formal recognition was given to the higher qualification of Accredited 
Pharmacist. The holder of an accredited pharmacy undergraduate degree who is a 
registered pharmacist can obtain the qualification by undertaking a higher course of 
study, and the qualification allows a pharmacist to undertake HMRs.

[13] The changes in registration requirements identified by the APESMA were as follows:

 The requirements for intern pharmacists to obtain registration had changed since 1998, 
In 1998 intern pharmacists were required to have completed 1824 hours of supervised 
practice, but now in addition they have to undertake further study conducted by an 
approved provider and undertake an oral examination and a written examination 
conducted by the Pharmacy Board of Australia.

 On and from 2010 the Pharmacy Board has developed Compulsory Professional 
Development (CPD) requirements for pharmacists to maintain their registration, and 
the CPD options for further training have been changed and expanded.

 Competency standards for pharmacists were introduced in 1999 which were mainly 
focused on the safe dispensing of medicines, but which have since been expanded to 
cover matters such as inoculations, medical certificates and HMRs.

[14] In addition or in the alternative, the APESMA contended that its claim should be 
granted on the basis that flat-dollar increases to award wages had eroded the basis upon which 
the work value of pharmacists had originally been assessed, namely identified relativities with 
the C10 rate in the Metal Industry Award 1984 (now the Manufacturing Award), and that 
these relativities needed to be restored in order for the rates of pay to correctly reflect the 
work value of pharmacists.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

8

[15] The APESMA’s claim was opposed by the PGA, Australian Business Industrial and 
the NSW Business Chamber (ABI/NSWBC), and Business SA. The PGA’s case in opposition 
to the APESMA’s claim was, in summary, as follows:

 The relevant datum point for the assessment of any change in work value was the 
making of the pre-reform Community Pharmacy Award 1998 on 24 December 1996, 
which was the last occasion when a federal industrial tribunal had determined the 
work value of pharmacists.

 The PGA accepted that the role of a pharmacist inherently involved change, as health 
services, treatment methods, medical information, community expectations, 
technology and procedures were changed or refined to better deliver health care 
services to the community.

 The PGA specifically acknowledged that elements of the competency standards and 
Bachelor of Pharmacy course had changed since 1998 to assist in the provision of 
better health care standards, that the provision of Government funded health service 
provided by pharmacists had been introduced to improve community health outcomes, 
and that community pharmacies had become more patient centred and focused on the 
delivery of primary health care to the community.

 However, the PGA contended that the resultant changes to the work of pharmacists 
had been evolutionary in nature but had not resulted in a significant net addition to the 
work value requirements of a pharmacist.

 The changes to the Bachelor of Pharmacy course content and duration commenced
prior to the 1998 benchmark, were minor in nature, and did not contribute to a 
significant net addition to work value.

 Some changes to the competency standards had increased or altered the work value of 
some but not all pharmacist classification levels, but have not resulted in a significant 
net addition to work value.

 Pharmacists have always been engaged in continuing professional training, and the 
mandatory CPD requirements did not involve a significant net addition to work value.

 Pharmacists have since 1994 been required to achieve the competency standards for 
registration in their respective States and Territories, and so this did not represent a 
significant net addition to work value.

 The requirement to keep abreast of changes and developments is a requirement of a 
professional role and did not constitute any change in work value.

 The evolution in health care services required to achieve the community’s health care 
objectives has evolved since 1998 due to improved technology, research/medical 
information and treatment information, but these did not involve any significant net 
addition to work value. Patient interactions and clinical interventions had always been 
part of the pharmacist’s role.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

9

 Both down-scheduling and up-scheduling of medicines occurred from time to time, 
but in any event the pharmacist had always needed to understand the nature, purpose 
and effect of those medicines and advise on managing conditions.

 Most of the changes relied upon by the APESMA did not involve genuinely new 
work, apart from perhaps inoculations, clozapine clinics and the provision of absence 
from work certificates. 

 There had been no significant net addition in workload since 1998 in circumstances 
where the number of pharmacies had increased by 13% but the number of registered 
pharmacists had increased by 43%.

 Offsetting any changes was the fact that certain tasks were no longer done or were 
only performed in limited circumstances, such as compounding, and technology had 
simplified a number of tasks such as PBS claiming processes, automated scanning and 
dispensing of prescriptions, stock administration, dose administration and availability 
of patient information.

 HMRs and RMMRs fell within the core clinical skill set of a pharmacist, and only 
about 10% of pharmacists were accredited to perform these.

 It would be inappropriate to establish a new Accredited Pharmacist classification 
because the role was directly linked or related to several government-funded programs 
which might not continue, and instead the inclusion of a higher duties allowance 
should be considered.

 There was no demonstration by the APESMA on what the actual increases to work 
value were for each classification such as to justify the proposed increases to 
minimum rates, nor how the modern awards objective in s 134(1) would be achieved 
by the grant of the claim.

[16] ABI/NSWBC likewise contended that the changes relied upon by the APESMA did 
not satisfy the test for a significant net addition to work requirements to justify the wage 
increases sought, and that increases of that magnitude would not meet the modern awards 
objective and the minimum wages objective.

APESMA’s Evidence

[17] The APESMA relied on the evidence of the following expert and lay witnesses: 

 Professor Ines Krass and Professor Parisa Aslani, who provided an experts’ report in 
two parts entitled “Work value of a community pharmacist” (Report);2

 Professor Philip Clarke, who provided an expert’s report “providing data and 
information on aspects of pharmacy ownership, pharmacy revenues and business sale 
prices”;

                                               

2 Part I of Report entitled “Work Value of a Community Pharmacist”, Exhibit 14; Part II of Report Entitled “Work Value of a 

Community Pharmacist Part II: Semi-structured interviews”, Exhibit 15








[2018] FWCFB 7621

10

 Dr Geoffrey March, President of Professional Pharmacists Australia;

 Ms Amy Thomson, Emergency Medicine Specialist Pharmacist and Specialist in 
Poisons Information in New South Wales;

 Mr Cameron Walls, Pharmacist Manager in Victoria;

 Ms Katerina Malakozis, Pharmacist in Charge in South Australia;

 Mr Cardin Le, Pharmacist in Charge in New South Wales;

 Mr Leon Wai Hon Yap, Clinical Hospital Pharmacist in Queensland;

 Ms Jennifer Ruth Madden, Locum Pharmacist in New South Wales; 

 Ms Carmel McCallum, Locum Pharmacist in New South Wales; and

 Mr Alex Crowther, Surveys Manager of APESMA.
[18] The APESMA also tendered a large range of documents relevant to matters referred to 
by their witnesses. It will only be necessary for us to directly refer to some of the Community 
Pharmacy Agreements tendered by the APESMA.

Professor Krass and Professor Aslani 

[19] Ines Krass is Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Sydney, and Parisa 
Aslani is Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Sydney. The 
APESMA commissioned them to prepare the Report via a “Commissioned Research Brief” 
which contained as its research proposal “To investigate changes in work value of a 
community pharmacist comparing 1998 with 2016”. The brief noted that the Commission was 
undertaking a 4 yearly review of the Pharmacy Award, that the APESMA’s position was that 
the rate of pay received by pharmacists was not reflective of the work they do, that the current 
award minimum rates of pay do not reflect the skill, responsibility and complexity of the work 
they currently do, that the APESMA had lodged a claim seeking increases in the award rates 
of pay for pharmacists based on the proposition that there have been significant changes in 
work since 1998, and that it was necessary for the APESMA to adduce evidence addressing 
the relevant legislative provisions and demonstrating the facts supporting the proposed pay 
increases. The brief requested a literature review to identify changes in work value between 
1998 and 2016 and semi-structured interviews with a sample of community pharmacists to 
explore their understanding and experiences of change in work value between 1998 and 2016.

[20] Professors Krass and Aslani prepared Part I of the Report, which was the requested 
literature review. They also prepared, with the assistance of Dr Vivien Tong, Part II of the 
Report, which was based on the requested semi-structured interviews. Professor Krass gave 
evidence before the Commission concerning the Report.

[21] The Preface to Part I of the Report discloses that the literature review was “conducted 
to explore the range and evidence for cognitive pharmaceutical services delivered by 
pharmacists in community settings”. The definition of “cognitive pharmaceutical services” 
(CPS) used was derived from one proposed for use in relation to professional pharmacy 
services as follows:

“A professional pharmacy service is an action or set of actions undertaken in or 
organised by a pharmacy, delivered by a pharmacist or other health practitioner, who 
applies their specialised health knowledge personally or via an intermediary, with a 
patient/client, population or other health professional, to optimise the process of care, 
with the aim to improve health outcomes and the value of healthcare.”








[2018] FWCFB 7621

11

[22] The Preface went on to say that although the definition encompassed services which 
could be delivered by other health care professionals within a pharmacy setting, the focus of 
the Report was on the roles, responsibilities, and value of community pharmacists with 
respect to the provision of cognitive pharmaceutical services in community settings.

[23] The background to Part I of the Report included the following (omitting footnotes and 
references):

“Facilitating quality use of medicines: evolution of community pharmacy practice in 
Australia

Pharmacists play a vital role in supporting QUM, one of the four key components of 
the National Medicines Policy, which denotes ensuring medication use by patients is 
judicious, appropriate, safe and efficacious. The National Competency Standards 
Framework for Pharmacists in Australia, published by the Pharmaceutical Society of 
Australia, is underpinned by the National Medicines Policy.

Community pharmacy contributes to the facilitation of quality use of medicines. With 
the emergence of the concept of pharmaceutical care, patient-centred care within 
pharmacy practice has gained momentum, challenging the traditional dispensing-
oriented role of pharmacists. Evident expansion of the provision of cognitive 
pharmaceutical services (CPS), within the community pharmacy setting is occurring 
both nationally and internationally. Pharmacy practice in Australia has since 
undergone a significant paradigm shift over the last two decades. 

Pharmacy education

Accredited pharmacy programs in Australia should deliver a curriculum which helps 
equip pharmacy graduates with the necessary foundation for commencement of the 
intern training program, and then to progress on to achieve the competencies set out in 
the national competency standards for pharmacists. When comparing the overall 
indicative pharmacy curriculum components in place in 2008 versus those currently 
implemented (effective from January 2014), several notable differences are evident, 
reflecting changes in pharmacy practice. Along with changes to pharmacy curricula 
and subsequent training to upskill graduates to ensure they are workforce-ready, 
pharmacists are now also required to engage in continuing professional development 
(CPD) throughout their careers. To be able to provide some of the remunerated CPS, 
pharmacists must also undertake further training to gain accreditation, in addition to 
any upskilling necessary to ensure that core professional competencies are 
maintained.”

[24] The Prelude went on to discuss “Government funding: supporting the viability of 
Australian community pharmacy” as follows (omitting footnotes and references);

“In Australia, 5-yearly Community Pharmacy Agreements (CPAs) commenced in 1990 
between The Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA) and the Australian Federal 
Government, have secured funding to support community pharmacy initiatives in 
promoting QUM and the viability of the industry. Over the years, increased funding 
has been allocated to the provision of CPS in community pharmacy. While the Second 
CPA (2CPA) (1995- 2000) pledged a modest amount of funding of up to $4 million 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

12

for CPS, the current Sixth CPA (6CPA) effectively saw a doubling of funds pledged 
compared to the previous CPA to facilitate remuneration for CPS provision, yielding: 

 $613 million in funding to support community pharmacy programs, which comprise 
many cognitive pharmaceutical services, 

 $50 million for the Pharmacy Trial Program, along with 
 ‘access to additional funding of up to $600 million over the Term to support new 

and expanded Community Pharmacy Programmes’.”

[25] The Prelude identified that when the provision of CPS are remunerated, this usually 
occurred via fee-for-service from government, with most such remuneration being provided to 
the pharmacy/pharmacy owner. Some CPS, such as DAAs and vaccinations were paid by the 
user of the service. The overall majority of CPA funding however remained directly linked 
with the dispensing/supply of medicine products to patients via the PBS. PBS reforms and 
price disclosure, which were aimed to reduce PBS expenditure, along with a proliferation of 
discount pharmacy business models, had led to financial pressure across the community 
pharmacy sector. An increase in CPS provision had been identified as an additional revenue 
source. The UTS Pharmacy Barometer, an annual report issued since 2012, highlighted in 
2016 that 59% of pharmacist respondent had reported beginning to provide new CPS in the 
last 12 months, and 80% of employer pharmacists were providing CPS. Further, the Pharmacy 
Guild Customers’ Experience Index reported approximately 80% of respondent customers 
listed at least one of the six services as being provided by their local pharmacy: blood 
pressure monitoring, weight management, diabetes screening and management, vaccinations, 
addiction intervention and mental health support, with blood pressure checks and vaccinations 
the most frequently reported to be used.

[26] In relation to remuneration of pharmacists, the UTS Pharmacy Barometer reported that 
employed pharmacists perceived an imbalance between wages and workload expectations, 
and also said that an oversupply of pharmacists was leading to lower wages and devaluing of 
the skills of the profession. Pharmacy employers also complained that low award rates 
allowed discount pharmacies to pay low wages, which placed competitive financial pressure 
on other pharmacies which sought to pay higher wages for good pharmacists. The UTS 
Pharmacy Barometer reported that 68% of employed pharmacist respondents had received no 
change to their remuneration over the last 12 months. Pharmacy owners reported that 75% of 
employed pharmacists were paid $30-$40 per hour, which was broadly consistent with the 
APESMA’s 2015 Remuneration Survey. This reflected that pharmacy owners were cutting 
salaries and reducing staff in order to compete with discount pharmacies. One study identified 
the view of Australian pharmacists as being that they “saw minimal opportunities to negotiate 
salaries” as they were easily replaceable with other pharmacists willing to work for lower 
remuneration. This position of reduced wages and the devaluation of the skills and the value 
of employee pharmacists was attributed to the oversupply of pharmacists. More than half of 
the respondents believed that pharmacists providing CPS should be more highly remunerated 
than those with dispensing-oriented roles, and there were some indications that there were 
increasing job opportunities for “professional services pharmacists” providing CPS.

[27] Part I of the Report identified the aims of the literature review as being to identify the 
range of CPS and health services delivered by community pharmacists, changes in services 
over the past 20 years, changes in policy, legislation and reimbursement, changes in 
professional expectations and guidelines, and pharmacists’ skills, knowledge and expected 
competencies reflecting educational changes in training at undergraduate, intern and 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

13

postgraduate levels. The focus of the literature review was said to be “The evidence of benefits 
surrounding implemented CPS that are currently or have been previously remunerated as 
part of previous CPSs in the Australian context”.

[28] The Findings section of Part I of the Report identified in a table the present CPS 
provided in community pharmacies, and explained in each case the nature of the service 
provided, the skill or training required, the patient outcome benefits and the economic 
outcome benefits. The CPS so described were: Medication management reviews (HMRs and 
RMMRs); MedsCheck and Diabetes MedsCheck; Clinical Interventions; Medication 
Adherence Programs; DAAs; Staged Supply; Continued Dispensing; Continuity of Care, 
including through Community Pharmacy Liaison Services; Aboriginal and Torres Strait 
Islander (ATSI) QUM Service; Chronic Disease Management; Healthy Lifestyle Support; 
Smoking Cessation; Screening/Monitoring Activities (Health Checks); Compounding 
Services; Vaccination; Sleep Apnoea Services: Sexual Health Services: Mental Health 
Services: Palliative Care Services; Maternal and infant services; Wound Management; Advice 
on minor ailments; Provision of Pharmacist-Only (Schedule 3) medicines; Complementary 
and alternative medicine; Opioid Dependence Treatment; Return of Unwanted Medicines; and 
Absence from Work Certificates. The Report discussed studies which had analysed outcomes 
and the uptake of the identified CPS, noting that a number of them had not yet been the 
subject of substantial research evidence.

[29] The conclusions in Part I of the Report were, in summary, as follows:

 The roles and responsibilities of community pharmacists have expanded over the last 
20 years, with a movement away from dispensing-oriented roles to increasing CPS 
provision in community settings. 

 Fundamental responsibilities related to the dispensing and provision of therapeutic 
goods have provided a foundation upon which CPS can be expanded. 

 Changes to legislation and funding in Australia have aided the facilitation of CPS 
provision and accessibility of these services to consumers in community settings. 

 Pharmacists are now being remunerated for services for which funding was not 
previously available. Funding arrangements under the CPAs have formalised and 
refined pharmacists’ skills into distinct, targeted CPS.

 Each community pharmacist will likely provide multiple CPS as part of their practice 
of the profession and thus, increasing their work value (when considering that the 
evidence available for individual CPS to date is promising in terms of various 
different factors). 

 In many instances, additional training is required to be completed by pharmacists in 
order to provide specific CPS interventions e.g. HMR accreditation, training to 
administer vaccinations, and other associated training to ensure professional standards 
and guidelines are met. 

 With an ageing population and thus, potentially more complex medication regimens, 
medical conditions and potential disease burdens among the patient population, 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

14

pharmacists’ diverse roles can help address the breadth of health and medication-
related issues experienced. 

 Each CPS provided by community pharmacists and/or in the community setting 
potentially contributes to improved patient health outcomes and/or economic 
outcomes for the health care system. Evidence from the literature also highlights the 
positive impact of CPS on clinical outcomes. 

 There is also evidence to suggest that CPS provision is inclined to be cost-effective in 
many instances, which can yield savings from both the health care system and for 
patients as well. However, further research is still required to better ascertain the cost-
effectiveness of CPS provided by community pharmacies from the perspectives of the 
health care system, patients, and also from the service providers where possible. 

 To better determine the impact of currently implemented CPS within the Australian 
context, further Australian health and economic outcomes evaluations are necessary to 
more adequately determine the current work value of Australian pharmacists based in 
community settings. This will help to ensure that cost savings to the health care 
system are being appropriately invested back into remunerating pharmacists who 
provide these valuable services. 

 Additional full economic evaluations are required within the Australian context to 
establish the extent of cost saving that CPS provide to the health care system. 
Evidence from the systematic reviews included in this review provide evidence to 
support the expanding role of community pharmacists and reinforces the need to 
ensure the implementation and expansion of evidence-based, value-added CPS.

[30] The objectives of Part II of the Report were set out as follows:

 to investigate and describe the cognitive pharmaceutical / health services currently 
provided by community pharmacists;

 to determine the reimbursement / revenue received by community pharmacists for the 
delivery of cognitive pharmaceutical / health services in their practice;

 to determine the self-reported patient health and economic outcomes of the cognitive 
pharmaceutical / health services delivered by the pharmacists; 

 to determine the self-reported health system economic outcomes of the cognitive 
pharmaceutical / health services delivered by the pharmacists; and

 to investigate the training received by the pharmacists in delivering the cognitive 
pharmaceutical / health services.

[31] Part II of the Report was prepared by inviting a random sample of pharmacists in the 
APESMA’s database to participate, and also by purposive sampling of pharmacists who were 
known to the research team as engaging in the provision of CPS, with variation sampling to 
capture pharmacists from a range of ages, years of practice, practice settings, cultural 
backgrounds and employee/employer status as well as to ensure gender representation. A total 
of 25 interviews were conducted, of which 14 were face-to-face and 11 by telephone.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

15

[32] The key conclusions reached in Part II of the Report from the interviews may be 
summarised as follows:

 pharmacists perceived that a core set of services were applicable across the sector, but 
that the actual services provided varied between pharmacies with smaller pharmacies 
having to structure and prioritise service provision;

 additional support by way of an increased number of pharmacists and other staff 
enabled the provision of CPS;

 the role and responsibilities of pharmacists differed in terms of services provided;

 the core 6CPA-funded services reported as being delivered in community pharmacies 
included DAAs, HMRs, MedsChecks/Diabetes MedsChecks, clinical interventions 
and stage supply;

 pharmacists were responsible for checking DAAs, where DAAs were seen to facilitate 
improved patient adherence to medicines and QUM;

 MedsChecks allowed pharmacists to assess patients’ understanding and use of their 
medicines, and were seen as a timely way to identify and address medication-related 
problems;

 HMRs enabled a detailed assessment and recommendations to be provided on a 
patient’s medication regimen, and positive feedback received on HMRs and the 
implementation of recommendations were reported;

 clinical interventions encompassed a broad range of potential medication-related 
problems, and were primarily viewed as a change in the documentation process rather 
than a change in practice;

 non-6CPA CPS that were more commonly reported as being provided included point-
of-care testing such as blood pressure/cardiovascular disease and/or blood glucose 
checks, pharmacist-delivered immunisation, and opioid substitution therapy;

 a range of other CPS were also reported including other point-of-care testing services, 
services provided to aged care and related facilities, chronic disease management 
(with and/or without diagnosis) and medication-oriented services;

 flu vaccinations were associated with a number of perceived benefits such as 
improved accessibility and uptake of flu vaccinations, increased convenience and 
perceived cost-effectiveness, and professional satisfaction;

 the most ubiquitous free service for patients was blood pressure checks; pharmacist 
involvement in these checks varied between pharmacies but pharmacists were 
involved at some point in the process, particularly in interpreting blood pressure 
readings;

 sleep apnoea diagnostic services were offered by some pharmacies;








[2018] FWCFB 7621

16

 services provided to facilities such as aged care facilities commonly centred on DAA
provision for residents;

 training varied significantly between undergraduate training, self-directed learning and 
completion of accredited training courses;

 accreditation courses were more likely completed for pharmacist-led immunisation, 
HMRs, and compounding;

 non-specific training typically included training received from company 
representatives and/or self-directed learning;

 financial support received for training undertaken by pharmacists varied; the most 
common course that was financially covered by employers was pharmacist-led 
immunisation training, but training opportunities received by staff potentially varied 
depending on their role within the pharmacy;

 reimbursements received for CPS varied; services typically provided at a charge to the 
patient included flu vaccinations, opioid substitution therapy, diagnostic testing of 
sleep apnoea, and absence from work certificates, while the common CPS offered free 
of charge to patients was blood pressure/cardiovascular disease checks;

 contributions for DAAs together with the funding received from the 6CPA was still 
regarded as insufficient to cover the costs involved in providing the service;

 a few participants noted that they had to decrease the fee-for-service for pharmacist-
led vaccinations due to increased competition;

 pharmacists were cognisant of the notion that fee-for-service, although desired, should 
not act as a barrier for service uptake among patients, and user-pay funding models 
were not deemed appropriate for all CPS such as blood pressure checks;

 encouraging customer loyalty and maintaining rapport with other service users (such 
as aged care facilities) were motives for providing services for ‘free’;

 perceived benefits of CPS included improved patient accessibility to services and 
convenience, cost-effective facilitation of QUM, improved patient adherence, 
satisfaction, and loyalty, and improved patient rapport, health management, patient 
education and empowerment; however, it was noted that it was difficult to determine 
the true impact of CPS;

 reimbursement received by pharmacists for the provision of CPS was regarded as 
insufficient;

 CPS provision contributed to the need for increased wage costs for the pharmacy such 
as by employing an additional pharmacist, which were then offset via earnings from 
other aspects of the pharmacy such as the dispensing of prescriptions and/or sale of 
consumables;








[2018] FWCFB 7621

17

 the perceived viability of community pharmacies had been impacted by PBS reforms;

 services were not regarded as a primary source of stand-alone income for pharmacies 
but rather, had flow-on effects for other aspects of the business which contributed to 
profitability;

 pharmacists had seen and experienced an evident expansion of services being provided 
in community pharmacies, and a certain level of service provision had become the 
status quo across the sector;

 an increased scope of practice for pharmacists has led to perceived opportunities for 
further role expansion in future;

 the quality of services might not be uniform across all community pharmacies;

 pharmacists’ roles and responsibilities have changed, where there were now increased 
opportunities for clinical involvement and inter-professional collaboration in the 
provision of patient health care;

 reforms such as accelerated price disclosure and emergence of discount pharmacy 
models of pharmacy have impacted the sector, and created an impetus for the industry 
to evolve, so that sole reliance on pharmacy as a supply function was no longer viable;

 decreased revenue generated from dispensing prescriptions had led to increased 
service provision, used as a point of difference;

 perceived positive changes to the profession included the impact of increased 
competition leading to innovation and increased CPS remuneration via the 6CPA;

 perceived negative changes to the profession included the price-focused paradigm 
shift impacting the fee-for-service sought, decreased viability of community 
pharmacy, and the devaluing of pharmacy due to discount pharmacies and price 
reductions;

 the core work value of community pharmacists centred on accessibility of health care 
and advice, and the resultant broader impact on the community;

 pharmacists were perceived to be undervalued by others, influenced by discount 
pharmacies, and it was perceived that governments should better recognise the value 
of, and appropriately remunerate, pharmacists;

 a positive outlook on pharmacy stimulated support for increased scope of practice as 
well as ongoing provision of CPS;

 continued engagement in providing CPS by pharmacists was primarily motivated by 
patient satisfaction, professional satisfaction, view of the optimal direction towards 
which pharmacy should be heading, altruism, wanting to provide a service to the 
community to promote health, and duty of care;








[2018] FWCFB 7621

18

 the service-oriented ethos of the community pharmacy or positive professional 
experiences involving senior members of the profession contributed to the service-
oriented practice of several participants; 

 external factors such as decreased profit margins for dispensing medicines and that 
other pharmacies were also offering services were also motivators for CPS provision;

 pharmacists recognised that there was limited profit earned for many CPS, and
pharmacy proprietors noted that many services were being operated at a loss to the 
pharmacy;

 as pharmacist roles were perceived as having expanded, there was support for 
recognition of this expansion both professionally and financially;

 the government was seen as an important stakeholder in facilitating the increased 
remuneration of pharmacists;

 in general, employee pharmacists did not receive additional reimbursements for 
delivering services within the community pharmacy on top of their wages;

 some pharmacists felt that their wage received as an employee pharmacist was 
inadequate and did not reflect their knowledge, skills and contribution to health care; 
and

 a multitude of factors were acknowledged as impacting on pharmacist wage levels;
several pharmacists reported negotiating their wage level, and believed that the onus 
was on the pharmacist to demonstrate their value to their employer and to negotiate 
their wage accordingly.

[33] The authors of Part II of the Report concluded that because the provision of 
professional services had become part of the status quo for the practice of the profession, 
“[t]his change indicates that there has also been a likely shift in the work value of community 
pharmacists”. In cross-examination Professor Krass affirmed this conclusion, saying:

“… I think the notion is that we were coming from the understanding is that the salary 
levels have not changed; in fact they have declined as I understand it. They have 
declined very significantly, and yet pharmacists are being expected to do more. The 
scope of their activities, the skill required to actually execute those activities has 
increased and changed over time, and that has not been reflected in the remuneration 
that they've received, and I would argue beyond that, if I might indulge you, that the 
community pharmacy agreements have delivered remuneration directly to the 
community pharmacy, but there's been no commensurate payment to the pharmacists 
themselves. So the employee pharmacists have been expected to do that – to expand 
the range of activities that they deliver, but that has not been reflected in any change to 
their salaries.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

19

When you say you would argue you're advocating that as a position or are you 
advocating that as the outcome of the semi-structured interviews?---That's what I 
found out from the interviews, yes.”3

Professor Clarke

[34] Professor Philip Miles Clarke is Professor in Health Economics within the Centre for 
Health Policy at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health in the University of 
Melbourne. He was commissioned by the APESMA via a research brief to provide a report 
on the current financial status of the community pharmacy industry covering: changes in the 
income received from government by community pharmacies since the late 1990s; any 
increases or reductions in remuneration received and the reasons for these changes; the 
profitability, or otherwise, of community pharmacies within Australia and an analysis of the 
reasons for their profitability; and whether a work value increase in the minimum rates of pay 
specified in the Pharmacy Award as proposed by the APESMA would have a significant 
negative impact on the financial sustainability of community pharmacies.

[35] In his report,4 Professor Clarke explained the regulatory framework in which 
community pharmacies operated. They are protected from competition by two sets of 
government regulations that form part of the Community Pharmacy Agreement, which is 
negotiated every five years between the Federal Government and the PGA and regulates most 
aspects of the pharmacy sector. The CPA provides for ownership rules which disallow non-
pharmacists from owning a pharmacy in Australia and effectively prevent supermarkets and 
international pharmacy chains from owning pharmacies in Australia, while location rules 
restrict the establishment of new pharmacies within regulated distances (typically 1½ 
kilometres). Professor Clarke gave evidence that the ownership and location rule restrictions 
have prevented new entrants into the pharmaceutical sector, in that the number of pharmacies 
in Australia has remained relatively static for almost 50 years, over which period the number 
of medical practitioners had more than doubled. The result was that ratio of the number of 
persons per pharmacy had increased from around 2000 to 4000.

[36] In relation to pharmacy revenues, Professor Clarke referred to a performance audit of 
the administration of the Fifth CPA by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), which 
quantified the remuneration received by pharmacies from the Commonwealth Government for 
dispensing and mark-ups. The audit found that payments received by pharmacies from the 
Government had tripled from around $750 million in 1991 to over $2 billion by 2013, even 
after adjusting for inflation. Professor Clarke said that this growth in remuneration is due to 
much higher volumes of dispensing as a result of a combination of population increase, 
ageing, and expanded prescribing from newer classes of drugs. In addition to increases in the 
dispensing fees paid to pharmacists, government payments were now around 20% higher in 
real terms than in the early 1990s due to greater pharmacy remuneration form mark-ups.

[37] Professor Clarke outlined the findings of the ANAO report that more than 18% of 
pharmacies in Australia receive more than $1 million in remuneration from dispensing drugs 
listed on the PBS, with 140 more pharmacies moving into the top-earning bracket when the 
2012 and 2013 financial years were compared. He stated that the high profitability of 

                                               

3 Transcript at PN1890-PN1893.
4 See Report of Professor Philip Clarke and associated documents, Exhibit 11








[2018] FWCFB 7621

20

established pharmacies meant that business sale prices were very high, with the cost of inner-
city and suburban pharmacies running into millions of dollars. These prices locked out many 
pharmacy graduates from ever owning their own business due to inflated business prices, and 
also mean that new entrants are saddled with levels of debt that turn what should be profitable 
businesses into marginal ones. Professor Clarke gave evidence that this creates a cycle of rent 
seeking: the ownership and location rules protect existing owners, forcing the next generation 
of owners to buy their businesses at inflated prices and thus seek ever more protection from 
competition in order to be profitable or even viable.

[38] In cross-examination, Professor Clarke acknowledged that not all pharmacies are part 
of the PBS (which is the scheme under which pharmacies are remunerated by the Government 
for dispensing scripts for scheduled medicines). He accepted that the practice of simplified 
price disclosure has reduced the benefits that pharmacies were getting, beyond the standard 
remuneration. Professor Clarke clarified that whilst the location and number of pharmacies in 
Australia is currently frozen, the number of pharmacists operating within the pharmacies has 
increased. However it remained the case that the pharmacist to population ratio is falling. 
Professor Clarke was of the view that this affected the labour market bargaining power of 
pharmacists, in that if employment opportunities for employed pharmacists are supressed by 
restricting the number of pharmacies, this may impact on the price of a pharmacist’s labour. 
Alternatively, in the presence of a monopoly, or some degree of monopoly by the employer, 
the bargaining powers change and that places downward pressure on wages of pharmacists. 
He stated that ultimately, the impact of the regulatory restrictions on the labour market would 
be determined by demand and supply factors. 

[39] Professor Clarke conceded that the available data concerning the profitability of 
pharmacies is imperfect and is ultimately based on averages rather than looking at the specific 
profitability of individual pharmacies. He acknowledged that not all pharmacies would be 
highly profitable and highlighted the lack of good public data in relation to the profitability of 
pharmacies. However the rules and restrictions applicable to pharmacies provide a regulated 
operating environment that protects existing pharmacy owners. There is a significant spread 
of remuneration to pharmacies from dispensing drugs listed in the ANAO report with only 
18% being in the top income bracket, and an increase to wages could affect low-income 
pharmacies, and in turn have consequences for the employment of pharmacists. 

Dr Geoffrey March

[40] Dr Geoffrey March is the President of Professional Pharmacists Australia, a division 
of the APESMA, and is also a National Assembly member of the APESMA. He has held 
various academic and professional appointments throughout his career, including as a 
Lecturer at the School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences at the University of South Australia
until his retirement in 2016. He was a registered pharmacist from 1977 until he retired from 
the profession in 2016, and worked as a practising pharmacist until 1997.

[41] He provided two statements in support of the claim. In his first statement dated 10 
December 2017,5 Dr March referred to his period of practice as a pharmacist, and said that 
when he commenced practice as an intern in 1976, he was ethically prevented from discussing 
or describing medication to patients, and his training and practice involved a focus on the 

                                               

5 Statement of Dr Geoffrey March dated 21 December 2017, Exhibit 1








[2018] FWCFB 7621

21

drug itself, how it worked, dosages and formulation. He was not trained to appreciate 
consumer wants, desires or needs, and it was expected that the consumer would accept his 
directions. 

[42] Dr March described a process of policy reform commencing in 1987 when the World 
Health Organisation issued a resolution calling upon all member countries to develop a 
national medicinal drug policy. In 1988 the Australian Government committed itself to the 
establishment of such a policy. The Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council (APAC) was 
subsequently established as a multi-disciplinary representative body, and in 2000 it published 
the National Medicines Policy.  The QUM strategy was also introduced in conjunction with 
the policy in 2000. A second committee established by the Australian Government, the 
Pharmaceutical Health and Rational Use of Medicines (PHARM) committee, also provided 
advice to the Minister and Department for Health and Ageing concerning strategies for the 
QUM in Australia. 

[43] In line with the principles of the National Medicines Policy, the strategy for achieving 
QUM was based on a partnership approach, in which a “medication team” consisting of 
consumers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses who each have a role to play in ensuring the 
medicines are used wisely in an environment that both supports and is conducive to the QUM.
The strategy was implemented by pharmacists in a number of ways, including in interactions 
with individuals patients, community groups and organisations.  

[44] Dr March gave evidence that he was part of a research team that investigated the 
development and implementation of a pharmacy practice based on the philosophy of 
pharmaceutical care as the QUM strategy where pharmacists in collaboration with the 
consumer and the consumer’s medical practitioner worked to identify and resolve medication-
related problems. One outcome of this research was the implementation of the HMR program, 
firstly in aged care facilities and eventually in the community.

[45] Dr March considered that the developments he described caused the “practice 
paradigm” in the pharmacy profession to change from pharmacists dispensing medication for 
a medical condition to a focus on the person suffering from a medical condition for which 
medication may or may not be appropriate. In terms of the University education of 
pharmacists, it was no longer sufficient for pharmacists to be trained only in all aspects of 
medicines including their formulation and action on the body. They also needed the ability to 
apply that knowledge through the use of “soft” skills - for example, by effective 
communication with customers and collaboration with other health professionals. New 
courses were added to the pharmacy curriculum to teach students the necessary skills to 
become patient care practitioners. These “Applied Therapeutics” courses covered topics such 
as pharmacists’ roles and responsibilities; understanding the health system; the role of 
standards, guidelines and ethics in practice; communication theory and skills development;  
cultural sensitivity; behavioural theory and application; problem solving skills including the 
basis of the pharmaceutical care model; inter-professional learning and collaboration; 
literature researching and critical evaluation skills to facilitate access to independent 
information; and understanding the roles and responsibilities of various professional bodies.

[46] By the time of his retirement in 2016, Dr March stated, pharmacy students were being 
taught to accept responsibility for the outcomes of the prescriptions and over-the-counter 
medicines they were dispensing by being able to effectively communicate with customers, 
exploring behavioural strategies to assist consumers in changing behaviours, developing the 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

22

skill to identify and resolve medication related problems, and communicating effectively with 
other health professions. These changes in the curriculum preceded changes in practice in the 
community setting, so that as at 2000 relatively few pharmacies had established a practice 
involving medication review and it was a challenge to find pharmacists who were beginning 
to practice in a more patient-centred manner or providing specific patient care services or 
student placements.

[47] Dr March also described the commencement of the accreditation of pharmacy 
programs in 1998 with the creation of the New Zealand and Australian Pharmacy Schools 
Accreditation Committee. The latest Accreditation Standards introduced in 2014 include a 
learning domain relating to the health consumer, which was an acknowledgement of the 
supremacy of the consumer in practice.

[48] In his reply statement dated 30 April 2018,6 Dr March further detailed the changes in 
education as a result of adopting a more patient-centric approach. He said that the new 
patient-centred approach started to be implemented partially in universities in around 1998 
and was rolled out in the following few years. In a formal sense patient-centred care became a 
core part of practice with the National Medicines Policy in 2000. QUM was at the heart of the 
policy, and it emphasised: selecting management options wisely; choosing suitable medicines; 
using medicines safely and effectively; greater engagement with the patient; understanding 
the health-care system and inter-professional learning and collaboration; making more 
complex judgments in applying standards, guidelines and ethics’ communication theory and 
skills development, cultural sensitivity, behavioural theory and application, and problem-
solving skills; and literature research and critical evaluation skills. Dr March set out that 
pharmacists were now required to engage on a higher level with patients and were not only 
required to consider the impact of medication on patients, but also matters such as the 
availability of other therapies, and costs for the individual, the community and the health 
system as a whole.

[49] In terms of the impact of the proposed variation on collective bargaining within the 
pharmacy industry, Dr March stated that, with the exception of one chain of pharmacies, no 
other community pharmacies have consistently entered into enterprise agreements. He noted
that the majority of community pharmacies are geographically diverse and have fewer than 20 
employees. He stated that this made it difficult to commence bargaining with these 
pharmacies.

Amy Thomson

[50] Amy Thomson7 is an Emergency Medicine Specialist Pharmacist employed by NSW 
Health at the Mona Vale Hospital NSW and a Specialist in Poisons Information at the NSW 
Poisons Information Centre at The Children’s Hospital Westmead. She is currently classified 
as a Pharmacist Grade 3 at Mona Vale and a Pharmacist Grade 2 at NSW Poisons Information 
Centre.

[51] Ms Thomson stated that her duties as an Emergency Medicine Specialist include: 

                                               

6 Reply Statement of Dr Geoffrey March dated 30 April 2018, Exhibit 2
7 See Statement of Amy Thomson dated 10 December 2017, Exhibit 4








[2018] FWCFB 7621

23

 the provision and development of clinical pharmacy services;

 obtaining detailed medical histories from patients;

 undertaking medication reviews;

 preparing pharmaceutical care plans;

 providing information to nursing and medical staff on relevant aspects of drug usage 
and availability; and 

 strategic planning for the pharmacy department.

[52] In relation to her appointment as a Specialist in Poisons Information, Ms Thomson 
stated her main responsibilities include: 

 the assessment of patients exposed to various toxins and advice on treatment;

 advising on the treatment of bites and stings and on the side effects and interactions of 
medications; and 

 answering general queries relating to poisoning, pesticides and chemical safety.

[53] Ms Thomson was awarded a Bachelor of Pharmacy at Sydney University in 2010. She 
described in detail the content of her undergraduate course, which she said had a focus on the 
quality use of medicines and how to improve patient outcomes. Relevantly, students were 
taught how to perform professional services and to integrate into the health care team, why 
pharmacists as experts were essential to the health care team, and how best to communicate to 
patients and doctors to improve patient outcomes. As examples of training in this area, Ms 
Thomson said she did a laboratory exercise about the appropriate use of amitriptyline for 
different patient groups, particularly the elderly; participated in role plays communicating key 
health messages to the general public; and learnt how to communicate with medical 
prescribers.

[54] Following the completion of her degree, Ms Thomson obtained provisional 
registration with the Pharmacy Board of Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency 
(AHPRA). Ms Thomson set out that for her intern year she was required to complete 1824 
hours of supervised practice, make and complete a training plan including obtaining 40 CPD 
points, undertake a written and an oral examination (with an overall pass mark of 65%), and 
complete the University of Queensland Pharmacy intern training course. The written 
examination included areas such as professional and ethical practice, the supply of prescribed 
medicines, the preparation of pharmaceutical products, and the delivering of primary and 
preventative health care. There was also a role play element based on a scenario where a 
patient presented a script for a medication, under questioning disclosed she had a history of 
seizures, and contact had to be made with the prescriber to recommend alternate treatment. 
Skills taught in her intern year included detecting, diagnosing and treating minor ailments,
detecting more serious conditions, when to refer patients to another professional and how to 
treat the more serious condition.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

24

Cameron Walls

[55] Cameron Walls8 is a Pharmacist Manager at a pharmacy in Wodonga, Victoria. He 
completed his degree in pharmacy at Charles Sturt University in 2009, and gained full 
registration as a pharmacist in 2011. He worked in two other pharmacies before his current 
position. He is classified as a Pharmacist Manager under the Pharmacy Award. He is paid $44 
per hour Monday-Friday, $55 per hour for Saturdays and overtime, and $65 per hour on 
Sundays.

[56] In addition to managing the business, Mr Walls undertakes duties providing 
prescriptions and medicines (typically dispensing 130-150 prescriptions per day), and 
performing services such as providing medical leave certificates, in-Pharmacy medication 
reviews, supervision of daily medication collection, screening and provision of sleep apnoea 
treatments and weight management consultations, and ensuring the pharmacy operates within 
the relevant legal framework and professional standards. He is required to supervise or be 
involved in the supply of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 pharmacy-only medicines where the 
patient does not require a prescription. It is necessary form him to ensure that such medicines 
are safe for the person taking, by considering their medical conditions, other medications they 
are taking, their age and gender and any other relevant information; it is also necessary for 
him to make sure that the treatment is likely to be effective, considering the nature and 
severity of the condition, the treatment options and, when required, to recommend an 
alternative treatment or make a referral to an alternative healthcare provider.

[57] Mr Walls also gave evidence that his duties now increasingly involve the provision of 
“professional services” which do not necessarily involve the sale of medicines or products.
These include such services as:

 pharmacist vaccinations;

 providing medical leave certificates;

 opioid replacement therapy;

 dose administration aids;

 staged supply;

 clinical interventions;

 sleep apnoea screening and treatment;

 weight loss programs;

 in-pharmacy medication reviews (MedsCheck and Diabetes MedsCheck);

 HMRs; and

 blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol screening.

[58] He stated that with the exception of vaccinations and HMRs, he had personally 
provided all of these services, and that that many of these professional services required 
training and accreditation in addition to his pharmacy degree. He set out that he had received 
specific training to provide opioid replacement therapy in accordance with Victorian 
legislation, sleep apnoea screening and treatment, and a specific weight loss program.

[59] In addition, Mr Walls stated that as a Pharmacist Manager, he had developed skills in 
human resourcing, stock control, and financial analysis. He stated that his pharmacy degree 

                                               

8 See Statement of Cameron Walls dated 15 December 2017, Exhibit 5








[2018] FWCFB 7621

25

did not provide him with these skills nor had he received any formal training from his 
employer. Finally, Mr Walls set out that increasingly, the responsibility of managing 
pharmacies is being undertaken by pharmacists who do not have ownership of the pharmacy, 
and that the training of interns is now falling on employees within the pharmacy, rather than 
the owner of the pharmacy. In that connection he has taken on the role of Preceptor, which 
involves supervising the learning and competence of an intern pharmacist during their 
registration year.

[60] Mr Walls also referred to the introduction of compulsory CPD and learning plans, 
which has occurred since the graduated. This had increased the burden of work in terms of 
documenting his learning activities, and all CPD activities had to be done in his own time and 
at his own expense.

Katerina Malakozis

[61] Ms Katerina Malakozis9 is employed as Pharmacist in Charge at National Pharmacies 
in Adelaide, and is paid $48.51 per hour. She gained full registration as a pharmacist in 1989, 
and has been employed since then in a range of pharmacies. Her responsibilities extend from 
managing all employees of the pharmacy and ensuring they have proper training, dispensing 
prescriptions and checking compatibility with other medications, counselling patients
concerning how to take their medications and how they work and what to expect from them, 
performing MedsChecks, administering influenza inoculations, supplying Pharmacist Only 
Medicine, issuing absence from work certificates, supplying and packing DAAs, providing
health information to patients, taking back and disposing of unwanted medicines, operating
diabetes assistance functions under the National Diabetes Supply Scheme, acting as Preceptor 
for interns, and ensuring the safe storage of medicines and providing advice about this. 

[62] Ms Malakozis gave evidence that during her period of employment as a pharmacist 
she had experienced a “dramatic change” in procedures and processes and in her work. At the 
commencement of her career in 1989/90, the main tasks she performed related to dispensing 
medication and providing information surrounding prescriptions. The prescriptions also had 
to be collated and missing scripts identified and removed from the claim, and then sent to 
Department of Health for payment. These tasks were now performed by dispensary 
technicians, but the pharmacist still needed to check the claim and personally sign it off.
Today, Ms Malakozis said, there was much more work in her daily tasks. Increasingly the 
general public would seek medical advice from pharmacists rather than from their general 
practitioner. She stated that pharmacists had become more accessible and now offered
services such as providing medical leave certificates, administering vaccinations, providing 
codeine products, and providing advice in respect of both minor and major health concerns 
(which often required referral to a GP). Ms Malakozis set out that there is a greater demand 
by the community to have a pharmacist deal with their health issues before they go to the 
doctor. Customers also sought advice on weight loss and the use of complementary 
medicines, and may want their blood pressure, blood sugar and/or cholesterol checked. Other 
interactions with customers included assistance with medication packs, dealing with requests 
to get expired scripts renewed, advice about generic medications and dealing with 
medications that are out of stock.

                                               

9 See Statement of Katerina Malakozis dated 20 December 2017, Exhibit 6








[2018] FWCFB 7621

26

[63] Ms Malakozis said that she typically was involved in the dispensing of 250-350 
prescriptions per day, along with constant requests for advice. All products dispensed were 
scanned using a Medicare/drug scanner to ensure minimal mistakes, and during this time it 
was necessary to record customer interactions, review customer history and offer advice and 
MedsChecks. It may also be necessary to administer first aid, deal with a customer in crisis, 
contact a GP about a prescription and check PBS claims. She also had the management 
responsibility to ensure staff complied with the new Professional Practice Standards and Code 
of Ethics. Generally, the scope of regulation of the profession requiring compliance had 
significantly expanded, including the introduction of mandatory CPD. The downscheduling of 
medication, which had increased the number of pharmacy-only medicines, had increased the 
workload.

[64] Mr Malakozis’ employment was covered by an enterprise agreement, with National 
Pharmacies having entered into a series of enterprise agreements over 20 years. The current 
agreement provided for study leave and assisted in contributing towards accreditation of 
pharmacists to perform HMRs.

Cardin Le

[65] Cardin Le10 is currently employed as a Pharmacist in Charge at a pharmacy in Wagga 
Wagga, at which he is paid $37 per hour for ordinary hours, $45 per hour on Saturdays and 
$50 per hour on Sundays and public holidays. He graduated at Charles Sturt University in 
2009 and gained full registration as a pharmacist in 2011. His current duties include rostering 
pharmacists, dispensary management, stock orders and control, inventory, compounding non-
manufactured medicines, and reporting to owners. He stated that during his time working as a 
pharmacist, he had observed a number of changes to the profession. Mr Le said that the 
profession had evolved from predominately dispensing medicines and administration to an 
increased demand for professional services. The services included counselling patients, daily 
staged supply of methadone to assist with the elimination of drug addiction, providing 
vaccinations, medications reviews, and QUM.

[66] Mr Le stated that an ordinary day involved dispensing approximately 250 or more 
scripts, checking Webster packs (a type of DAA), providing consultations for, on average, 20 
walk-in patients per day regarding minor health advice or pharmacist only medicine requests, 
conducting medication reviews and administer walk-in vaccinations.

[67] Mr Le’s evidence was that the demographic of the pharmacy in a rural area was 
significantly different from other pharmacies in that there is diversity in age, ethnic 
backgrounds and socio-economic circumstances. Dealing with patients with special 
requirements, such as ones who spoke limited English, in combination with dispensing their 
prescriptions and managing the supervision of staff, whilst other customers were left waiting,
caused pressure in the role particularly when Mr Le was the sole pharmacist on duty. Mr Le 
stated that there may be the need to dispense between 250 and 350 scrips during an eight hour 
shift, some being more complicated than others, and requiring the provision of particular 
advice to customers.

                                               

10 See Statement of Cardin Lee dated 13 December 2017, Exhibit 7








[2018] FWCFB 7621

27

[68] Mr Le emphasised that there was a significant amount of new work in the role not 
previously undertaken by pharmacists, compared to when he had commenced practising in 
2011. This new work included administering vaccinations, the impact of QUM, down-
scheduling of medicines, and the administration of medication to an ageing population. 
Accordingly, Mr Le stated that there is more work and pressure on pharmacists without any 
additional remuneration. The evidence was that often prescription choices made it necessary 
to exercise judgement and skill in relation to the suite of appropriate medication.

[69] In addition he stated that since the completion of the undergraduate degree, further 
training has had to be undertaken to perform many of the newly required pharmacy services.
The further training included training for vaccinations, medication reviews, and down-
scheduling of drugs.

Leon Wai Hon Yap

[70] Leon Wai Hon Yap11 is employed as a Clinical Hospital Pharmacist at the Gold Coast 
Health and Hospital Service. He completed a Bachelor of Pharmacy at the University of 
Queensland in 1998, and gained full registration as a pharmacist with the Pharmacy Board in 
1999. Mr Yap’s employment is classified as a Health Professional Level 3 Paypoint 6 at 
$45.40 per hour under the Health Practitioners and Dental Officers (Queensland Health) 
Award - State 2015, a Queensland state award. Prior to his current position, he worked in 
community pharmacies from 1999 until 2016. In his last pharmacy in 2016 he was paid $35 
per hour Monday-Friday and $40 per hour on Saturdays.

[71] He set out that during his career he had seen changes in both the way he performed his
work and the types of work performed. Mr Yap stated that whilst at university from 1996 to 
1998, the curriculum focussed on the pharmacology of medicines, basic human anatomy, 
human physiology, basic medicine compounding, the science behind medicine design and 
delivery systems, prescription legalities, dispensing, patient counselling, and over the counter 
prescribing.

[72] Mr Yap stated that in 1999, to satisfy the requirements to be eligible for registration in 
Queensland as a pharmacist, he was required to complete an open book written exam and to 
complete 48 weeks of supervised practice. He stated that the exam covered topics such 
pharmacy law and ethics, pharmacological questions, and pharmacy practice questions. His 
first job as a pharmacist consisted of serving customers with minor ailments, receiving 
prescriptions from customers, interpreting and dispensing prescriptions, explaining to
customers how to use medications, and providing over the counter medications to treat minor 
ailments, limited to conditions such as colds and flu, minor aches and pain, hay fever and 
minor skin irritations. Other duties included collating prescriptions for reimbursement by the 
government under the PBS, ordering stock and placing stock on the shelves. He provided 
customers with over-the-counter medicines, but the quantity and variety of these was much 
smaller than today. The minor ailments he diagnosed and treated were limited to conditions 
such as colds and flu, minor aches and pains, hay fever and minor skin irritations.

[73] Mr Yap outlined the responsibilities of contemporary pharmacists, and stated that 
pharmacists were now required to be trained and competent to diagnose, treat, or to decide 

                                               

11 See Statement of Leon Wai Hon Yap dated 18 December 2017, Exhibit 8








[2018] FWCFB 7621

28

when to refer a patient to a doctor for, a much wider range of conditions. These new duties 
related to “bacterial conjunctivitis (Chloramphenicol), Nausea related to migraine 
(Metoclopramide and Prochlorperazine), medicated weight loss treatments (Orlistat), 
provision of Proton pump inhibitors (PPI' s) for the treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux 
Disease ( GORD ), assessing the requirement for and providing nasal decongestants 
facilitated with the use of Project Stop, providing Emergency Contraception (the morning 
after pill), oral antiviral treatments for cold sores (Famciclovir), oral treatments for vaginal 
thrush (fluconazole) and the provision of Naloxone for the emergency treatment of acute 
opioid overdose.”

[74] Furthermore, he stated that the provision of Emergency Contraception required 
pharmacists to be able to determine not only that the product will be appropriate, safe and 
effective for the particular patient but also to be able to assess and assist in cases where the 
patient may be underage or there is the possibility that a sexual assault has taken place. He 
stated that this may require specialist knowledge of local sexual health clinics, sexual assault 
services as well as the requirements for mandatory reporting of suspected cases of child 
sexual abuse. Pharmacists also now had to operate a screening and recording database 
(Project Stop) established by the PGA to facilitate the supply of nasal decongestant products 
containing pseudoephedrine.

[75] Mr Yap said that the dispensing process had become “slightly faster” due to improved 
technology and better software, but his patients had increased requirements to assess the 
appropriateness of a treatment due to the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, 
neurological conditions, autoimmune diseases, and the increasing complexity of the 
medicines used to treat these conditions. He stated that this had resulted in more complex and 
comprehensive patient counselling, in order to better educate patients on the medicines they 
are taking. He stated that this was in addition to the demands of patients who were generally 
becoming more interested in their health and medicines and requesting more information 
about medicines. The introduction of Quality Standards as part of the QCPP from around 
2000-1 onwards placed a greater burden on the pharmacist in charge or pharmacist manager, 
who usually undertakes the role of QCPP standards coordinator. The introduction of dose
administration aids, which occurred since Mr Yap became registered, was an important but 
time consuming and mentally challenging service. Creating a DAA involved repacking a 
person’s dispensed medicine into a single disposable 7-day blister pack that sets out a 
person’s medicines in an easy-to-red and accessible way. The role of packing DAAs is often 
carried out by pharmacy assistants, although in smaller pharmacies it may be carried out by 
the pharmacist, but they always need to be checked for accuracy by the pharmacist. The 
number of persons on opioid replacement had increased in Mr Yap’s experience from 5-19 to 
20-40, the legal requirements for dispensing opioid had become more explicit and the types of 
opioid replacement had increased. Each patient who presents to the pharmacy for opioid 
replacement has to be identified and assessed as to whether they are able to be dosed, and the 
pharmacist must then measure out the dose, provide it, watch it being consumed and make 
sure it is not diverted. In addition, a range of recording requirements must be carried out.

[76] Mr Yap stated that with the establishment of the Pharmacy Board of AHPRA in
around 2000, pharmacists are now required to complete a certain amount of hours of CPD. 
For the most part, this learning had to be done in the pharmacist’s own time and very rarely 
were pharmacists paid to undertake this learning.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

29

[77] He also referred to the advent of professional services now being provided by 
community pharmacies. These professional services included HMRs, MedsChecks and 
Diabetes MedsChecks, and in the case of one pharmacy where Mr Yap was employed, a 
Clozapine clinic. In order to provide HMRs, a pharmacist had to obtain accreditation, which 
involved either a face-to-face workshop or online preparatory course, the completion of a 
communication module, a multiple choice examination and the completion of four case 
studies by correspondence. In respect of HMRs, a portion of the money the pharmacy receives 
from the federal government, through 6CPA funding for this service is passed on to the 
pharmacist. In the case of MedsChecks and Diabetes MedsChecks, he stated that very rarely 
was any of the money that the pharmacy received as part of 5CPA and 6CPA funding shared 
with the actual pharmacist performing these services. The conduct of a Clozapine clinic in the 
last pharmacy Mr Yap worked in involved servicing 30-40 clients per clinic and required a 
patient’s blood test results to be inspected and signed off on a special monitoring website, and 
the details of dispensing of the Clozapine entered into the website. This process was time 
consuming and only commenced about 3 years ago.

Jennifer Madden

[78] Jennifer Madden12 completed a Bachelor of Pharmacy at the Victorian College of 
Pharmacy in 1968, and gained full registration as a pharmacist with the Pharmacy Board of 
Victoria in 1970. She has worked, always on a part-time basis, in community, hospital, 
military, academic, research and consulting pharmacy roles. She remains registered as a 
pharmacist and is currently employed as a locum pharmacist with several pharmacies. She is 
currently classified as a Pharmacist in Charge, and is paid $40 per hour. Her duties include the 
usual activities of dispensing and supervising the sale of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 
medicines, and providing advice on medications as requested or necessary. She is not required 
to pay wages or manage stock, apart from during busy times, and would make corrections to 
Webster Packs when needed. As an Accredited Pharmacist she manages the HMR process, 
and also works with nursing homes regarding RMMRs to identify suitable residents and 
request reviews from their doctor as well as performing them.

[79] Ms Madden gave evidence that the university curriculum when she studied pharmacy 
at that time focused on becoming familiar with medicines prescribed by doctors and becoming 
expert in over-the-counter medicines, preparations and counter dispensing (for coughs and 
colds, pain remedies and first aid). She studied pharmacology, physiology and drug 
scheduling. When she commenced working as an intern in 1969, she said there was very little 
pressure and responsibility, and she performed typing, compounding and packing of bulk 
medicines. She did a practical and oral examination at the end of her internship. Ms Madden 
compared this to her experience of internships in recent years as a tutor and supervisor, and 
said that the intern year was now intense and demanding with a lot of assignment work and a 
more strenuous examination at the end.

[80] In relation to the work of a pharmacist, she said that in her experience there had been 
little change in the work until the advent of computers, initially in dispensing, in the 1980s. 
Computerised records allowed easy access to a patient’s history of use of medicines, and 
facilitated analysis of a patient’s profile when dispensing medicines. The introduction of 

                                               

12 See Statement of Jennifer Ruth Madden dated 14 December 2017, Exhibit 9








[2018] FWCFB 7621

30

Schedule 3 pharmacist-only medicines in the 1990s added another level of responsibility to 
pharmacists.

[81] Ms Madden said that during the 1990s, the rapidly expanding drug compendium 
available for prescribing, in conjunction with increased legal obligations, highlighted the need 
for continuing education which was initially voluntary but is now compulsory, being 40 hours 
required for continued registration. However it was emphasised that no increased 
remuneration was provided in response for this compulsory activity. She is required to 
undertake at least 60 hours of continuing education per year in order to maintain her 
registration as an Accredited Pharmacist.

[82] She set out that she had been accredited to undertake HMRs and RMMRs for about 15 
years, and this constitutes about half her work. The skills required to be an Accredited 
Pharmacist are those of any registered pharmacist, but the accreditation process requires the 
pharmacist to show good communications skills at the professional and lay level and a good 
climical understanding of medicines and medical conditions.  To become accredited she need 
to undertake a course accredited by the Australian Pharmacy Council, which included a 
communication module and ten case studies involving the preparation of a medication profile 
in each case. The course took almost a year to complete. She stated that she is required to sit 
an exam every three years to maintain her registration as an Accredited Pharmacist. Now that 
she is accredited she can write the report to the doctor based on feedback from another 
pharmacist or her own knowledge without actually interviewing the patient, but in fact of her 
800 clients she only participated in one review without actually interviewing the client.

[83] Ms Madden also identified the additional professional services and duties performed 
by pharmacists. She stated that she frequently provided clinical interventions to customers, 
extending from directing a patient who wanted an antiseptic for a dog bite to go to their doctor
as the antiseptic was an inadequate therapy, to a scenario involving checking why a patient 
was now taking a higher strength asthma medicine than six months prior, or intervening in not 
selling another patient Ventolin for a cough as they had not been diagnosed with asthma. In 
addition Clinical Interventions occurred with particular doses of drugs where “black box”
warnings apply, that is, the medical professional is alerted to a potential problem with a
particular drug or dose of drug. Her evidence was that the intervention may only take a 
number of minutes, or more than 10 minutes and often involved related phone calls to a 
doctor or carer. These interventions reduce the burden on the health system.

[84] In relating the nature of her changed duties, she stated that in the last two days of work 
in the community pharmacy, she filled 304 prescriptions between 9.00 am and 5.30 pm. She 
completed this task with one dispensary assistant and three competent shop staff. In addition 
she recorded 10 interventions and a range of other discussions with patients. She also checked 
50 to 60 Webster packs, made changes to 2 Webster packs and initiated a new pack. In 
addition she supervised the sale of 20 Schedule 3 medicines and had discussions with two 
General Practitioners that were time-consuming. She noted that on this day there were no 
requests for Blood Pressure or Blood Glucose Level checks, no vaccinations or requests from 
hospitals for patient profiles or supply pick-ups.

[85] She stated that increasingly, pharmacists are often asked to respond to symptom based 
requests where in contrast previously the pharmacist was not called on as often to 
communicate about medicines, they were just dispensed. She stated that since the 1980s, in 
terms of Schedule 3 medicines, there has been significant movement of medications down the 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

31

Schedule, which has placed pressure on Pharmacists to communicate information about these 
drugs to assist the patient. There is a need to dispense medications in an informed manner, 
taking into account the patient’s circumstances.

Carmel McCallum

[86] Carmel McCallum13 graduated in 1977 at the University of Sydney and gained full 
registration as a pharmacist in 1977, and retains current registration as a pharmacist. She has 
worked at a range of community pharmacies, and has previously been an owner of a 
pharmacy, and is currently employed as a locum pharmacist. She is classified as a Pharmacist 
in Charge and is paid $40 per hour. Ms McCallum’s duties in her current position extend from 
dispensing and checking prescriptions; dispensing, checking and signing off DAAs; logging 
Schedule 8 medicines (including opioids, fentanyl, central nervous system stimulants such as 
Ritalin, and alprazolam); counselling patients regarding new prescription medications, 
adverse reactions or when interactions with other drugs may occur; counselling, diagnosing 
and recommending treatments for ailments as the first point of contact for patients;
interpreting patient blood pressure readings and blood sugar levels; pain management and 
alternative recommendations when drug dependence is suspected; dispensing and delivery of 
methadone or buprenorphrine under the NSW Opioid Treatment Program; issuing medical 
certificates; overseeing the general day-to-day performance of staff; managing the supply of 
drugs at the pharmacy; and ascertaining the entitlement of patients to receive prescriptions 
under the National Health Scheme.

[87] Ms McCallum gave evidence that she commenced work in 1977 as an unregistered 
graduate pharmacist in a small pharmacy in New South Wales. She stated that at that time her 
duties involved handwriting copies of prescriptions into a log book, handwriting repeats and 
typing labels on a typewriter, and that all her work was checked off by a more senior 
registered pharmacist. If a product such as creams, ointments or mixtures had to be prepared, 
it could take ten minutes to an hour and about 70-80 scripts would be processed per day. Ms 
McCallum stated that she was able to spend up to 10 minutes per patient, and was able to 
provide them with advice on minor ailments, such as bites, rashes, minor burns, injuries, 
allergies, upper respiratory tract infections, vomiting and diarrhoea, difficulties with new-born 
babies, recommending the appropriate treatment which was available over the counter, or 
other non-drug related action. She also made up proprietary products, such as cough 
medicine, in bulk.

[88] She stated that over her time in the profession she had observed additional 
expectations, regulations and increases in workloads for pharmacists. She stated that much of 
the increased workload has come about as a result of the increase in life expectancy, change in 
medications, and increases in co-morbidity and lifestyle disease states. Pharmacists now had 
to oversee the accuracy of dispensing huge numbers of prescriptions. A number of pharmacies
were now providing dispensing services in locations near large hospitals with casualty wards 
operating 24 hours per day. She referred to the up-scheduling since the 1990s of products 
containing codeine, pseudoephedrine and dihydrocodeine to Schedule 3 and 3R (which 
required recording), which required the pharmacist to ascertain need, usage, possible 
interactions, adverse reactions and addiction and misuse issues. The up-scheduling of codeine 
products to Schedule 4 would be challenging in terms of dealing with patients with 

                                               

13 See Statement of Carmel McCallum dated 18 December 2017, Exhibit 12








[2018] FWCFB 7621

32

addictions. The down-scheduling of products since the 1990s also increased pharmacists’ 
responsibilities.

[89] Ms McCallum also referred to other changes and new work such as blood pressure 
measurement (which might lead to a medical referral), training for the Diabetes Medication 
Assistance Service (although this had not proved successful), an exponential increase in the 
prescribing of Schedule 8 drugs over the last 6-7 years (which required much longer to be 
dispensed), and an increase in interventions. She had also dealt with at least six differing 
digital dispensing systems over the last 35 years.

[90] She stated that unlike most professionals, pharmacists were not able to make 
appointments for enquiries during the work day, as there was an expectation that pharmacists 
are available at all times during operating hours. Pharmacists were required to be available at 
all times of the day during opening hours while on the premises, but the pressure and 
workloads had increased enormously since 1977.

Mr Alex Crowther

[91] Mr Alex Crowther is employed as the Surveys Manager of the APESMA. In his first 
witness statement,14 Mr Crowther said that his duties include the collection of data using 
online surveying tools for the purposes of creating market research of interest to APESMA, 
and he conducts regular surveys of remuneration and employment conditions in a number of 
industries covered by the APESMA. Relevantly the APESMA had published the Community 
Pharmacists’ Remuneration Survey Report series since 1995. Data published in this series 
was collected from members of the APESMA’s pharmacy division as well as non-member 
pharmacists who had previously interacted with the APESMA through online campaigns or 
social media. He stated that the report series benchmarked the employment conditions and 
remuneration of pharmacists employed in the community pharmacy sector. It collected and 
reported data including community pharmacists’ hourly rates of pay, additional 
responsibilities required of community pharmacists beyond dispensing medicine, sentiment 
regarding working in the community pharmacist sector, and demographic information.

[92] Mr Crowther’s statement annexed copies of the report series since 1995. He stated the 
following conclusions, derived from the report series, about wages movement for 
pharmacists:

 The 2016 Remuneration Survey identified mean hourly rates of pay for permanent 
employee pharmacists at each of the classifications outlined in the Award as follows: 
Pharmacy Intern ($23.02), Pharmacist ($32.49), Experienced Pharmacist ($36.66), 
Pharmacist-in-Charge ($35.95), and Pharmacist Manager ($38.49).

 Mean hourly rates of pay reported by community pharmacists were lower in 2016 than 
they were for community pharmacists surveyed in 2011, with decreases of 5.49% for 
Pharmacists, 3.73% for Experienced Pharmacists, 7.94% for Pharmacists-in-Charge, 
and 1.86% for Pharmacist Managers. Prior to 2011 community pharmacists mean 
hourly rates of pay had increased steadily.

                                               

14 See Statement of Alex Crowther dated 13 December 2017, Exhibit 17








[2018] FWCFB 7621

33

 Growth in the hourly rates of pay for community pharmacists had also fallen behind 
growth in the Australian wages generally, as measured by the Wage Price Index 
(WPI), and the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for 
each of the classifications above that of Pharmacy Intern. 

 Since 1998, Pharmacists had experienced a decline in the real value of their wages of 
11.59%, Pharmacists-in-Charge of 7.35%, and Pharmacist Managers of 3.52%. 
Pharmacists had also experienced wage growth 21.47% below that of the average 
Australian, 17.69% for Pharmacists-in-Charge, and 14.29% for Pharmacist Managers. 

 The underperformance of pharmacist wage growth relative to both CPI and WPI was
largely due to stagnant and declining hourly rates of pay since 2011. Prior to 2011 
pharmacists tended to outperform both CPI and WPI year on year.

[93] In respect of the this decline in wages, Mr Crowther noted that as the report series 
does not use the same respondents year-on-year, this was likely due to a combination of both 
stagnant wage movement and new entrants to the industry at each classification being offered 
progressively lower starting packages.

[94] The report series also surveyed whether the respondents were required to provide any 
professional services as part of their duties, including HMRs, RMMRs, MedsChecks, 
vaccinations, and other services. The results were as follows:

 MedsChecks services: 85.9%

 Vaccinations: 20.98%

 Other services: 15.41%

 HMRs: 15.41%

 RMMRs: 4.59%.

[95] Only 8.4% of respondents that performed one or more of these services reported 
receiving additional compensation.

[96] In his statement in reply,15 Mr Crowther referred to the Graduate Outcome Survey 
published by Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching. He stated that this survey 
provides information regarding commencing salaries for Australian graduates, and that the 
latest report published January 2018 identified pharmacy graduates were the most poorly 
remunerated of any professionals. Based on this survey he said that “… compared to other 
allied health professionals, pharmacy graduates had commencing salaries 26.7% less than 
Nursing graduates, and 23.6% less than Psychology graduates in 2017. Compared to 
Engineering graduates, another professional that requires a four-year degree and covered by 
Professionals Australia, Pharmacy graduates have a commencing salary 31.3% less in 2017.”

                                               

15 Reply Statement of Alex Crowther dated 1 May 2018, Exhibit 18








[2018] FWCFB 7621

34

Community Pharmacy Agreements

[97] The APESMA tendered copies of the six Community Pharmacy Agreements which 
have been entered into between the Federal Government and the PGA in 1990, 1995, 2000, 
2005, 2010 and 2015 (amended in 2017) respectively. We will refer to certain aspects of those 
agreements relied upon by the APESMA.

[98] The First CPA entered into in 1990 had two parts. The first was concerned primarily 
with the adjustment of the Commonwealth’s price for pharmaceutical benefits. That price 
consisted of two elements: a dispensing fee and a mark-up component. The agreement 
provided for the dispensing fee to be indexed in accordance with a formula that included a 
75% “labour component” which was adjustable in accordance with award wage movements. 
The second part was concerned with various restrictions on competition in the pharmacy 
sector and dealt with matters such as the subsidised closure and amalgamation of pharmacies, 
the payment of an “Essential Pharmacy Allowance” by the Commonwealth “to approved 
pharmacies to maintain an essential pharmacy service and to maintain access to 
pharmaceutical benefits”, ownership laws, pricing and location rules. The Second CPA 
entered into in 1995 removed the labour component from the indexation process, and simply 
used the CPI. It also dealt with various agreed restrictions on competition, and provided for 
the payment of an additional allowance for isolated and remote pharmacies.

[99] The Third CPA entered into in 2000 stated that it was based on a number of principles, 
one of which was “expanding community pharmacy’s professional roles”, and also provided 
for objectives that included “development of enhanced medication reviews, in cooperation 
with the medical profession, aimed at improving health outcomes and quality use of medicines 
for the Australian community” and “coordination in the delivery of primary health care 
services and achievement of a multi-disciplinary approach to the provision of quality health 
and pharmacy services for all sections of the community”. The agreement contained a specific 
endorsement of the PGA’s Quality Care Pharmacy Program as an appropriate quality 
assurance and professional practices standards program, and noted that funding for such 
standard were derived from the Pharmacy Development Program (PDP). The PDP was a 
program to be administered by the PGA and funded by the Commonwealth to the amount of 
$188 million over five years for the purpose of promoting “the enhanced involvement of 
community pharmacy in the pursuit of quality and cost effective service delivery. The 
agreement also provided for Medication Management Services (MMS) to patients in 
residential aged care and domiciliary settings to “reduce the risk of drug misadventure and 
optimise the benefits achieved from drug treatment by focussing on the achievement of quality 
use of medicines.” The Third CPA stated that it “builds on previous arrangements for delivery 
of medication review by incorporating several new elements”, including MMS to residents of 
residential aged care facilities, domiciliary MMS and case discussion and care planning, and 
these would be funded to the amount of $114 million over the life of the agreement.

[100] The Fourth CPA entered into in 2005 had different principles and objective, one of 
which was to “ensure that the Programs target areas of need in the community including 
continued improvement in community pharmacy services provided to Aboriginal and Torres 
Strait Islander people”. It noted that the Third CPA made provision for a total of $400 million 
for pharmacy programs, which included an amount contributed by the pharmacy that was 
funded through a reduction in the dispensing fee. The Fourth CPA indicated the amounts of 
funding assigned to various programs over five years, including $73.5 million for the QCPP, 
$39.7 million for DAAs, $10.4 million each for the diabetes and asthma pilot programs, $10.5 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

35

million for improved counselling for dispensing emergency contraception, $66.75 million of 
RMMRs and $54.15 million for HMRs.

[101] The Fifth CPA entered into in 2010 had further re-formulated principle and objectives, 
including to “ensure that the Programs are patient-focused and target areas of need in the 
community ...” and, in relation to professional pharmacy programs, had specific objectives 
including to “recognise that beneficial health outcomes can be achieved through the delivery 
of evidence based professional pharmacy programs and services”. The program finding 
priorities for the Fifth CPA were identified as including Medication Management Programs, 
Pharmacy Practice Incentive and Accreditation and Medication Continuance. In addition to 
the priority programs, there was funding for a new Medicines Use Review Program (to 
“provide an in-pharmacy medicine review between pharmacists and patients to enhance the 
quality use of medicines and reduce the number of adverse medicines events”) of $29.6 
million over five years, and funding for a number of existing programs including HMRs 
($52.11 million), RMMRs ($70 million), Diabetes Medication Management Service ($12.2 
million), Pharmacy Practice Incentive and Accreditation ($75 million) and Medicine 
Continuance ($1 million). Other programs funded over the five years included $97 million for 
Clinical Interventions by Pharmacist (which program was to “build on 3rd and 4th Agreement 
Research and Development Projects to encourage Approved Pharmacists to provide and 
document clinical interventions arising from their patients’ medicine use” and had the aim to 
“increase the number of clinical interventions provided and documented and improve 
communications with patients and prescribers”), $132 million to support the provision of 
DAAs, $35 million for the Staged supply support allowance (which program would “provide 
a payment to eligible Approved Pharmacists which meet specified performance requirements 
in providing dispensed PBS medicines in instalments when requested by the prescriber…”), 
$5 million to support the Accreditation System and roll-out of Additional Programs to 
Support Patient Services, and a total of $8 million for other programs.

[102] The Sixth CPA entered into in 2015 and amended in 2017 continued to provide 
funding totalling $613 million for Community Pharmacy Programs including Medication 
Adherence Programs, DAAs, Staged Supply, Medication Management Programs, Clinical 
Interventions, HMRs, RMMRs and MedsCheck (a new name for the Medicines Use Review 
Program initiated in the fifth CPA).

Summary of the PGA’s Evidence

[103] The following persons gave evidence on behalf of the PGA:

 Ms Natalie Willis, pharmacist and owner of two pharmacies in Western Australia;

 Mr Angelo Pricolo, pharmacist and a partner in a pharmacy in New South Wales; and

 Mr Nicholas Loukas, pharmacist and owner of several pharmacies across Queensland.

Natalie Willis

[104] Natalie Willis16 graduated in 1994 and began practising as a pharmacist in 1996 after 
completing her intern year. She initially worked as a locum pharmacist, and then became an
owner of a pharmacy in Western Australia in 1999 (initially as a partner and later as a sole 

                                               

16 See Statement of Natalie Willis dated 18 April 2018, Exhibit 24








[2018] FWCFB 7621

36

owner). She works in the pharmacy about three days per week performing a variety of clinical 
and administrative tasks. She is also a partner in a second pharmacy in Western Australia but 
does not work in the pharmacy itself.  She said that all the pharmacists employed in the 
pharmacies were paid above the minimum wages prescribed in applicable Western Australian 
State award. No Accredited Pharmacists were employed. All her pharmacists were accredited 
to provide influenza vaccinations but were not paid more because of this.

[105] Ms Willis gave evidence that pharmacists had always been accountable for the safe 
and judicious use of medicines, but there was now a greater need to record, document and be 
able to justify the actions of a pharmacist in order to receive government payments and as a 
defence to litigation. Since 1998 there had been an increase in the level of Federal 
Government funding for community pharmacy services, in recognition of the capacity of 
pharmacies to enhance community health outcomes. Payment mechanisms had been 
developed for some of these services such as HMRs, MedsChecks, staffed supply, clinical 
interventions and DAAs. However most of these services were being performed by 
pharmacies prior to Government funding streams; the funding was more a recognition of the 
contribution of pharmacists to community health and to get these activities recorded, not to 
encourage pharmacies to do them. The tasks were performed by pharmacies in 1998, but were 
offered free of charge or on a fee-for-service basis. Because there was no funding available, 
the need for documentation for these activities was far less. She stated that there had been a 
shift in government funding in terms of the remuneration moving away from the dispensing 
function (as this waned) to provide for the true cost of funding the professional services 
activities of community pharmacy.

[106] Ms Willis said that pharmacists now routinely performed services outside dispensing 
and counselling such as point of care testing and formal MedsChecks. However they were still 
performed but were less commonplace 20 years ago and pharmacists had always been 
educated and qualified to perform these. The increased prevalence of these duties was offset 
by a greater number of dispensing staff. Pharmacists now were able to administer influenza 
vaccinations, which they had only been able to dispense before.  Improvements in technology 
such as automated dispensing and scanning had improved dispensary speed, efficiency and 
accuracy, and developments in dispensing software had made it easier to assess the suitability 
of a medicine for a patient since script history, allergies and interactions with other medicines 
were more readily apparent. She stated that whilst automated systems existed for packing 
dosage administration aids, her pharmacies did not use one but instead used a computer to 
record medication profiles and track virtual pill counter patients. She stated that computers
were increasingly used to record information and communicate with patients.

[107] In response to the list of new work claimed by APESMA, she considered that the 
administration of vaccinations was the only new work that required her to undertake 
additional training above her degree. She stated that with the exception of HMRs and 
RMMRs, she had performed every other professional service relied on by APESMA, either 
formally or informally, and had not required further education. She stated that her pharmacists 
have performed these services since 1998 and they are seamlessly integrated into their 
workflows. In the case of HMRs and RMMRs, Ms Willis stated that whilst these services 
required a pharmacist to obtain additional accreditation, it only required the pharmacist to 
prove clinical skills and adherence to a standardised documentation process, and does not 
require any special skills over and above those possessed by any other pharmacist.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

37

[108] She stated asthma and diabetes management programs were highly variable, ranging 
from involving a patient who had an asthma action plan for an understanding of their blood 
glucose meter operation. Alternatively, it may involve simply ensuring the patient properly 
took the medication. She stated counselling on these conditions had always been part of her 
practice since commencement. She stated there were very few pharmacies providing 
specialised services in these areas where they had undertaken advanced training to provide a 
new service. Her evidence was that if the government decided to find a more formalised 
service then most of the training process driven would be a refresher in nature as pharmacists 
already handled these necessary clinical skills. She stated that pharmacists had always 
undertaken clinical interventions, with the difference being that these are now recorded.

[109] She stated that sleep apnoea services had become possible due to the advances in 
technology. However, she stated pharmacists understood sleep apnoea, it being a part of the 
university course requirement. In this regard the pharmacists play the support role in the 
communication with the patient and fitting of the machines but the sleep apnoea physician 
gives the actual diagnosis. She gave evidence that all pharmacists have undertaken drug
compounding in their degree. She also stated that weight management services in a pharmacy 
will usually involve information on the use of meal and replacement weigh-ins and that often 
non-pharmacists conduct these. Point of care blood pressure testing had been undertaken by 
pharmacists since before she graduated. As for smoking cessation services, in most 
pharmacies this was largely limited to providing advice on nicotine replacement products, and 
rarely did pharmacies provide any formalised service involving counselling and cognitive 
behavioural therapy. The provision of absence of work certificates, which started in 2009, did 
not involve new skills, and the only training required was how to fill out a form.

[110] Ms Willis noted that the requirement to diagnose and treat of minor ailments and if 
necessary referral of patients to their treating medical practitioner, was not a new duty. 
Furthermore, in terms of the down-scheduling of various medicines from Prescription Only 
Medicine to Pharmacist Only Medicine, she stated that pharmacists were required to learn 
about these medicines when they were prescription only and are already fully conversant in 
these medications and the conditions they are used to treat, regardless of their scheduling. The 
Quality Care Pharmacy Program did not involve changed work, but was just a means of 
ensuring good practice. Clozapine clinics only required pharmacists to follow a process of 
recording pathology results into a database prior to supply, and only affected a small number 
of pharmacists.

[111] Ms Willis also gave evidence that there were aspects of pharmacists’ work that were 
no longer performed. Most pharmacies were not doing any significant compounding in 1998, 
and now compounding pharmacies were doing more and regular pharmacies were doing less. 
Manual processing of PBS claims, scheduled medicine recording, reporting, ordering and 
stocktaking had ceased, and while prescription volumes had increased, this had not been 
evenly distributed. The main change from her perspective was that, unlike 1998, it was now 
difficult to make a viable profit from dispensing. Any increase in pressure on pharmacists was 
mainly cause by owners and managers not employing adequate staff in order to minimise 
costs. In her experience, a typical pharmacist was dispensing less prescriptions and 
performing more patient services than 20 years ago. Technology had vastly streamlined 
dispensing and reporting services, and this together with more support staff had created more 
time for the pharmacist to spend with the patient. The degree of interaction between 
pharmacists and patients varied depending upon the service model adopted at each pharmacy, 
but generally the industry was moving towards being a personal service industry.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

38

[112] In Mr Willis’ opinion, there had been no significant net addition to the work or 
responsibility of pharmacists since 1998, but pharmacists’ role had evolved into one whereby 
the skills they learned at university were now more frequently used.

Angelo Pricolo

[113] Mr Angelo Pricolo17 is a Pharmacist and a partner in the ownership of a pharmacy 
located in Melbourne. The pharmacy employs 22 staff, and pays above the minimum rates in 
the Pharmacy Award. Mr Pricolo graduated in pharmacy in 1986 and was registered as a 
pharmacist in 1987.

[114] He stated that although the work for pharmacists has evolved over the past 20 years, 
their core tasks have remained the same: supplying prescription medicines to patients, and 
recommending additional measures and products if required. The drugs and the directions for 
their use changed over time, but this had always been the case and that was why continuing 
professional development remained essential. The need to talk to patients, understand their 
health issues and relevant medicines and their effects had always been part of the role of the 
pharmacist, although pharmacists had tended to make themselves more accessible to patients.

[115] Mr Pricolo stated that the impact of technology meant that pharmacists are now no 
longer required to remember significant amounts of information about various drugs and 
medications, and that although there are more drugs and medications available today, this 
information is easily accessible electronically. Pharmacists made up a lot more 
extemporaneous medicines in 1998 compared to now, and there are far fewer scripts that 
require compounding. His pharmacy began issuing medical certificates in about 2008, and 
this had become a popular service, but it was a relatively straightforward task drawing on the 
existing skills of the pharmacist to talk to a patient and understand their health issues.

[116] Mr Pricolo disagreed that there is a significant amount of new work being undertaken 
by pharmacists. He stated that a variety of professional services now offered by pharmacies, 
were in many instances done informally, and they had been formalised because they now 
attracted federal government funding. For instance, he stated that pharmacists have always 
dispensed inoculation drugs and the fact that some pharmacists are now able to inject some 
inoculation drugs is a “small additional component” to the existing practice but consistent 
with health care services a pharmacist had always provided. Asthma and diabetes 
management programs were also not new, although the form of medical treatment had 
changed. Similarly, HMRs and RMMRs were performed informally previously, and formal 
training in these services was now required to be able to claim it through the PBS. None of 
Mr Pricolo’s pharmacists performed this task. Clinical interventions had always been 
performed, although they are now recorded formally to document how often they happen 
because the pharmacy can now be remunerated for them. DAAs were also not new, although 
these were now done differently through the use of blister packs. Sleep apnoea services were 
not provided in Mr Pricolo’s pharmacy. Weight management services required talking to 
patients, understanding their needs and providing them with advice and products to meet that 
need; it did not require any additional skill or accountability. There had always been a 
capacity and knowledge to perform blood pressure level tests and blood glucose tests, and the 

                                               

17 See Statement of Angelo Pricolo dated 18 April 2018, Exhibit 21 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

39

current devices made this task easier and quicker. Smoking cessation services were not new.
Diagnosing and treating minor ailments such as colds and flu, minor aches and pains, hay 
fever, minor skin irritations and wounds, had always occurred and predominately only the 
products have developed and changed. Down-scheduling of drugs had not affected the skill, 
workload or responsibility of pharmacists, and it was still the role of the pharmacist to talk to 
the patient about the drug. The issue of emergency contraception was not common, but in any 
event still required the normal responsibility of ensuring that the medication was appropriate 
and safe. 

[117] Mr Pricolo gave evidence that the introduction of quality standards had “formalised 
what we have all aspired to but not in itself added to workload or the 
responsibility/accountability of a pharmacist.” He stated that the pressure faced by 
pharmacists is not new and prioritising tasks and managing workflow has always been part of 
the job. He considered that there has not been a significant increase in the workload, 
accountability or responsibility of a pharmacist. He stated that whilst pharmacists may now 
spend more time talking to patients, technology has meant that less time may be spent in other 
areas (such as retrieving patient histories, providing insurance receipts and printing out 
consumer medicine information leaflets).

Nicholas Loukas

[118] Nicholas Loukas18 graduated as a pharmacist in 1991 and began practising in 1992. He 
has held ownership interests in pharmacies since 1993, and is currently the owner of five 
pharmacies in Northern Queensland. He pays all of his employed pharmacists above the 
minimum wage rates prescribed by the Pharmacy Award. He does this because the market 
rate is higher than the award and he has to pay more to attract suitable and experienced 
pharmacists to work in rural locations.

[119] Mr Loukas stated that since 1998, he has experienced a “lessening” in the 
administrative workload of pharmacists, so that although more administrative work was 
required for the Sixth CPA, there was less administrative work overall due to improvements 
in PBS claiming processes and software advances. PBS claims had in 1998 been a major 
component of the work, requiring extensive paper work, data claiming and couriering of 
claims. There had also been a huge drop in extemporaneous dispensing activities, so that it 
was rare to make up things such as creams and solutions. The scanning of prescriptions since 
1998 had meant that the data entry work of a pharmacist had dropped significantly, and higher 
volumes of prescriptions were now able to be processed with the same resources due to IT 
improvements, and accuracy had improved, with scan checking of prescriptions taking some 
pressure off pharmacists. Mr Loukas said that it was his opinion that the accountability of 
pharmacists had decreased because of the improvements in IT systems such as script scanning 
and scan checking. He stated reduced administrative responsibilities had allowed pharmacists 
to have more direct contact with customers. In his statement, Mr Loukas considered that 
whilst the type of work he performed had shifted, this did not represent an overall increase in 
how much work was being performed.

[120] In relation to the APESMA claim that there had been a significant amount of new 
work taken by pharmacists, Mr Loukas disagreed and said:

                                               

18 See Statement of Nicholas Loukas dated 19 April 2018, Exhibit 22








[2018] FWCFB 7621

40

 no one in his pharmacies performed HMRs or RMMRs:

 no one in his pharmacies performed inoculations;

 pharmacists carried out asthma and diabetes management programs in 1998, with 
there being a drop in the workload requirements but better education for patients and 
awareness of the use of preventative medicines;

 pharmacists had always done clinical interventions, but the recording of this was new;

 DAA work had been performed since 1998, although there had been a small increase 
in the number of DAAs provided;

 none of his pharmacies provided sleep apnoea services;

 none of his pharmacies provided compounding services;

 very little weight management services work was performed in his pharmacies and the 
focus was on providing general medicines advice as pharmacists had always done;

 blood pressure level tests had been conducted in his pharmacies since 1998, and the
work was the same and did not require any new skills;

 none of his pharmacies did blood glucose level tests or provided smoking cessation 
services;

 diagnosis and treatment of minor ailments such as colds and flu, minor aches and 
pains, hay fever, minor skin irritations and wounds and, if necessary, referral to a 
medical practitioner was done in exactly the same way as in 1998;

 the introduction of quality standards through QCCP had not led to any further work 
load, but was just the formalisation of work practises already in place;

 absence from work certificates were not provided in any of his pharmacies as no 
demand for them had been identified; and

 in respect of Clozapine clinics, only one of his pharmacies had 2 patients, for which 
very little administrative work was required.

[121] Mr Loukas said that with the down scheduling of a large number of previous 
prescription-only medicines, pharmacists now had to diagnose and treat conditions such as 
bacterial conjunctivitis (chloramphenicol), nausea related to migraines (Metoclopramide), 
medicated weight loss treatments (orlistat) provision of pump inhibitors (PPI) for treatment of 
GORD, nasal decongestants (facilitated with the use of Project Stop), providing emergency 
contraception(morning after pill), oral antiviral treatments for cold sores (famciclovir), oral 
treatments for vaginal thrush (fluconzale) and the provision of Naloxone for the emergency 
treatment of acute opioid overdose. However he said that this had caused very little change in 
work load as the same amount of the mentioned conditions were presented at the pharmacy;








[2018] FWCFB 7621

41

the diagnosis process was the same as it was in 1998, but there were better options for 
treatment to recommend to patients. Mr Loukas did accept that emergency contraception was 
new work for pharmacists, and that whilst it did represent an increase in the accountability 
and responsibility of a pharmacist, there were no other instances of this. He also said that 
dangerous drug recording was a manual task required in 1998 which was now undertaken 
electronically.

Statutory framework and the assessment of work value

[122] The task required to be undertaken in a 4 yearly review is set out in s 156(2) as 
follows:

What has to be done in a 4 yearly review?

(2) In a 4 yearly review of modern awards, the FWC:

(a) must review all modern awards; and

(b) may make:

(i) one or more determinations varying modern awards; and

(ii) one or more modern awards; and

(iii) one or more determinations revoking modern awards; and

(c) must not review, or make a determination to vary, a default fund term of a 
modern award.

[123] The conduct of the 4 yearly review is subject to s 138, which provides:

138 Achieving the modern awards objective

A modern award may include terms that it is permitted to include, and must include 
terms that it is required to include, only to the extent necessary to achieve the modern 
awards objective and (to the extent applicable) the minimum wages objective.

[124] The modern awards objective is set out in s 134 of the FW Act, and provides as 
follows:

134 The modern awards objective

What is the modern awards objective?

(1) The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National 
Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and 
conditions, taking into account:

(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and








[2018] FWCFB 7621

42

(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and

(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce 
participation; and

(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient 
and productive performance of work; and

(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for: 

(i) employees working overtime; or

(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; 
or

(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or 

(iv) employees working shifts; and

(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable 
value; and

(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, 
including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and

(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable 
modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern 
awards; and

(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on 
employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and 
competitiveness of the national economy.

This is the modern awards objective.

When does the modern awards objective apply?

(2) The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the 
FWC’s modern award powers, which are:

(a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and

(b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2 6, so far as they relate to 
modern award minimum wages.

Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any 
other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or 
revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also 
applies (see section 284).








[2018] FWCFB 7621

43

[125] The minimum wages objective is set out in s 284(1), which provides:

284 The minimum wages objective

What is the minimum wages objective?

(1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking 
into account:

(a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including 
productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment 
growth; and

(b) promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and

(c) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and

(d) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; 
and

(e) providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior 
employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees 
with a disability.

This is the minimum wages objective.

[126] The general principles applicable to the conduct of the 4-yearly review were recently 
summarised in Alpine Resorts Award 201019 as follows:

 section 156(2) provides that the Commission must review all modern awards and 
may, among other things, make determinations varying modern awards;

 “review” has its ordinary and natural meaning of “survey, inspect, re-examine or 
look back upon”;20

 the discretion in s 156(2)(b)(i) to make determinations varying modern awards in a 
review, is expressed in general, unqualified, terms, but the breadth of the discretion 
is constrained by other provisions of the FW Act relevant to the conduct of the 
review;

 in particular the modern awards objective in s 134 applies to the review;

 the modern awards objective is very broadly expressed,21 and is a composite 
expression which requires that modern awards, together with the NES, provide “a 

                                               

19 [2018] FWCFB 4984 at [52]
20 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [38], (2017) 

253 FCR 368 at [38], (2017) 272 IR 88 at [38]








[2018] FWCFB 7621

44

fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions”, taking into account 
the matters in ss 134(1)(a)–(h);22

 fairness in this context is to be assessed from the perspective of the employees and
employers covered by the modern award in question;23

 the obligation to take into account the s 134 considerations means that each of these 
matters, insofar as they are relevant, must be treated as a matter of significance in 
the decision-making process;24

 no particular primacy is attached to any of the s 134 considerations and not all of 
the matters identified will necessarily be relevant in the context of a particular 
proposal to vary a modern award;25

 it is not necessary to make a finding that the award fails to satisfy one or more of 
the s 134 considerations as a prerequisite to the variation of a modern award;26

 the s 134 considerations do not set a particular standard against which a modern 
award can be evaluated; many of them may be characterised as broad social 
objectives;27

 in giving effect to the modern awards objective the Commission is performing an 
evaluative function taking into account the matters in s 134(1)(a)–(h) and assessing 
the qualities of the safety net by reference to the statutory criteria of fairness and 
relevance;

 what is necessary is for the Commission to review a particular modern award and, 
by reference to the s 134 considerations and any other consideration consistent with 
the purpose of the objective, come to an evaluative judgment about the objective 
and what terms should be included only to the extent necessary to achieve the 
objective of a fair and relevant minimum safety net;28

                                                                                                                                                  

21 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No 2) (2012) 205 FCR 227 at [35], 

(2012) 219 IR 382 at [35]
22 [2017] FWCFB 1001 at [128]; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group

[2017] FCAFC 161 at [41]–[44], (2017) 253 FCR 368 at [41]-[44], (2017) 272 IR 88 at [41]-[44]
23 [2018] FWCFB 3500 at [21]-[24].
24 Edwards v Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561 at [5]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] 

FCA 1121 at [81]-[84]; National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [56], (2014) 244 IR 

461
25 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [33],  (2017) 

253 FCR 368 at [33], (2017) 272 IR 88 at [33]
26 National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [105]-[106]
27 See National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [109]-[110]; albeit the Court was 

considering a different statutory context, this observation is applicable to the Commission’s task in the Review
28 Ibid at [28]-[29]; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 

161 at [49]








[2018] FWCFB 7621

45

 the matters which may be taken into account are not confined to the s 134 
considerations;29

 section 138, in requiring that modern award may include terms that it is permitted to 
include, and must include terms that it is required to include, only to the extent 
necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and (to the extent applicable) the 
minimum wages objective, emphasises the fact it is the minimum safety net and 
minimum wages objective to which the modern awards are directed; 30

 what is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective in a particular case is a 
value judgment, taking into account the s 134 considerations to the extent that they 
are relevant having regard to the context, including the circumstances pertaining to 
the particular modern award, the terms of any proposed variation and the 
submissions and evidence;31

 where an interested party applies for a variation to a modern award as part of the 4 
yearly review, the task is not to address a jurisdictional fact about the need for 
change, but to review the award and evaluate whether the posited terms with a 
variation meet the objective.32

[127] The capacity of the Commission to vary minimum wages in a modern award in the 
course of the conduct of the 4 yearly review is constrained by s 135 of the FW Act, which 
provides:

135 Special provisions relating to modern award minimum wages

(1) Modern award minimum wages cannot be varied under this Part except 
as follows:

(a) modern award minimum wages can be varied if the FWC is 
satisfied that the variation is justified by work value reasons (see 
subsections 156(3) and 157(2));

(b) modern award minimum wages can be varied under section 160 
(which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors) or 
section 161 (which deals with variation on referral by the Australian 
Human Rights Commission).

Note 1: The main power to vary modern award minimum wages is in 
annual wage reviews under Part 2-6. Modern award minimum wages can 
also be set or revoked in annual wage reviews.

                                               

29 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [48]
30 CFMEU v Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 123 at [23]; cited with approval in Shop, 

Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [45]
31 See generally: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No.2) (2012) 205 FCR 

227
32 Ibid at [46]








[2018] FWCFB 7621

46

Note 2: For the meanings of modern award minimum wages, and setting 
and varying such wages, see section 284.

(2) In exercising its powers under this Part to set, vary or revoke modern award 
minimum wages, the FWC must take into account the rate of the national 
minimum wage as currently set in a national minimum wage order.

(Underlining added)

[128] Section 156(3), referred to in the underlined part of s 135(1)(a) above, provides:

(3)  In a 4 yearly review of modern awards, the FWC may make a determination 
varying modern award minimum wages only if the FWC is satisfied that the variation 
of modern award minimum wages is justified by work value reasons.

[129] The expression “work value reasons” is defined under s 156(4) of the FW Act:

(4) Work value reasons are reasons justifying the amount that employees should 
be paid for doing a particular kind of work, being reasons related to any of the 
following:

                     (a)  the nature of the work;

                     (b)  the level of skill or responsibility involved in doing the work;

                     (c)  the conditions under which the work is done.

[130] Section 157(2), also referred to in the underlined portion of s 135(1)(a) above, 
provides for the variation of awards outside the system of 4 yearly reviews for work value 
reasons in specified circumstances.

[131] The fixation of award wages based on an assessment of the value of the work 
performed has been a feature of the industrial arbitration system in Australia from its earliest 
days. Work value assessment has its origin in the need to fix the wage margins for skilled 
workers to be paid in addition to the basic wage for unskilled workers. As was explained by 
H.B. Higgins J, in his capacity as President of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, in his 
decision in 1921 to make the first federal award for the metals and engineering industry
(emphasis added):

“This Court assumes that a skilled man should, as has been the uniform practice, get 
more for his skill or other necessary qualifications than a mere labourer – more or 
better commodities, and to that end more money wages. This Court takes the basic 
wage for the labourer and then adds to it the extra wage without which, under present 
conditions, lads will not take the trouble of mastering the difficulties of a skilled trade. 
If there is one thing that has been made clear in all the Australian tribunals it is that the 
basic wage is the wage at the base – the wage for the unskilled worker; and that the 
secondary wage for skill and other necessary qualifications has to be added to the basis 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

47

wage. The basic wage must not take into account the conditions appropriate to the 
skilled workers at all.”33

[132] The considerations taken into account in assessing work value underwent refinement 
in succeeding decades (including after the introduction of the “total wage” in 1966). For 
example, in the work value inquiry conducted in relation to the Metal Trades Award in 1967, 
the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Gallagher J) referred to the subject 
matter of the assessment as being the “work, its nature and responsibilities”, and took into 
account:

“…all relevant facts and circumstances, including qualifications, training and skill, 
technological changes, changed conditions, changes in metals, alterations of methods 
of work, increased temp of work, responsibilities  individually and as a member of a 
team, availability for skilled work and the length of time which has elapsed since 
previous fixations …”.34

[133] In the 1968 Vehicle Industry Award decision of Senior Commissioner Taylor, regard 
was had to the following matters in adjusting award rates of pay on the basis of work value:

“1. The qualifications necessary for the job; 

2. The training period required; 

3. Attributes required for the performance of the work; 

4. Responsibility for the work, material and equipment and for the safety of the plant 
and other employees; 

5. Conditions under which the work is performed such as heat, cold, dirt, wetness, 
noise, necessity to wear protective equipment etc; 

6. Quality of work attributable to, and required of, the employee; 

7. Versatility and adaptability (e.g. to perform a multiplicity of functions); 

8. Skill exercised; 

9. Acquired knowledge of processes and of plant; 

10. Supervision over others or necessity to work without supervision; and 

11. Importance of work to the overall operations of plant.”35

                                               

33 (1921) 15 CAR 297 at 303-4
34 (1967) 121 CAR 587 at 677
35 (1968) 124 CAR 295 at 308








[2018] FWCFB 7621

48

[134] These considerations were considered in the context of manufacturing work, and the 
Senior Commissioner made it clear that he did not suggest that “these are the only factors 
proper for consideration in the fixation of wage rates”.36

[135] Both these last two decisions referred to emphasised two important requirements if the 
assessment of work value: the identification of the date from which the assessment of change 
is to commence (sometimes referred to in later decisions as the “datum point”), and the need 
to avoid “double counting” of matters potentially relevant to changes in work value in relation 
to which wage increases had already been paid. In respect of the former, the Metal Trades 
Award decision of Gallagher J identified the datum point by reference to the last occasion on 
which there had been a proper work value assessment:

“Proceeding to consideration of wage fixations and first dealing with tradesmen, 
although Beeby J by 1937 had determined margins which he regarded as proper for 
their classifications, the fact remains that rates for tradesmen in the metal trades 
industry have not over a period of 30 years been fixed by reference to their training, 
work, duties and responsibilities. The decision given by Mr Conciliation 
Commissioner Galvin (as he then was) in 1952 although reached after a hearing in 
which there had been lengthy evidence resulted in award rates being left as they then 
stood, with relativities except for minor adjustments remaining undisturbed. There 
were, of course, prior to the Galvin award and subsequently to it, increases on 
economic grounds but these were of a general character applying to all employees in 
all industries. In my opinion, the economic increases taken in the aggregate have failed 
to provide for tradesmen the award wages to which on the whole of the course of the 
evidence in this case they are justly entitled.”37

[136] In relation to the latter requirement, Senior Commissioner Taylor in the Vehicle 
Industry Award decision said:

“National productivity is considered in National Wage Cases and any increase is 
allowed for in the wage rates determined in such cases. As such rates apply to 
employees in all industries, employees in the industry now under review have already 
received any increases considered appropriate on account of national productivity. As 
the productivity of this industry is taken into account in determining the national 
average, it would be a double counting to again increase wages in this industry on 
account of its productivity.”38

[137] In 1972, the concept of work value was considered in the 1972 Equal Pay Case39 in 
the context of implementing equal pay for women. The Commission determined to move 
beyond the narrow principle of equal pay for men and women doing the same work covered 
by a single award (which had been affirmed in the 1969 Equal Pay Case40) to a broader 
concept of “equal pay for work of equal value”. It established a new principle to give effect to 
this concept which required that “female rates be determined by work value comparisons 

                                               

36 Ibid
37 (1967) 121 CAR 587 at 679
38 (1968) 124 CAR 295 at 308
39 (1972) 147 CAR 172
40 (1969) 127 CAR 1142








[2018] FWCFB 7621

49

without regard to the sex of the employees concerned”. The new principle relevantly provided 
that: “Implementation of the new principle by arbitration will call for the exercise of the broad 
judgement which has characterised work value enquiries. Different criteria will continue to 
apply from case to case and may vary from one class of work to another.”41

[138] The capacity to adjust award wage rates on work value grounds was regulated and 
constrained by the adoption of principles of wage fixation by the Australian Conciliation and 
Arbitration Commission in the September 1975 National Wage Case.42 This was done in 
association with the introduction of wage indexation, and was intended to restrict the extent to 
which award wages might be increased outside of National Wage Cases following the “wage 
explosion” of 1974. Principle 7 of the principles then adopted provided that, in addition to 
wage increases arising from the wage indexation system, the “only other grounds which 
should justify wage increases” were changes in work value, a catch-up of community 
movements and anomalies. The work value exception (in Principle 7(a)) was expressed in the 
following terms:

“Changes in work value being changes in the nature of the work, skill and 
responsibility required, or the conditions under which the work is performed. This 
would normally apply to some classifications in an award although in rare cases it 
might apply to all classifications.”

[139] The intended operation of this principle was discussed in some detail in the September 
1975 National Wage Case decision. The Commission made it clear that the identification in 
the principle of the type of changes necessary was intended to be exhaustive and not merely 
illustrative.43 It also made it clear that the principle was not intended to codify all previous 
forms of work value assessment - in particular, the notion of comparative wage justice. In this 
respect the Commission said:

“Our view in April to which we still adhere was that to extend Principle 7(a) to cover all 
previously recognized forms of work value assessment would be simply to 
superimpose indexation on wage fixing methods which in 1974 had created instability 
both industrially and economically. It is disturbing that this is not apparent to many 
unions and even to some arbitrators. With a multiplicity of systems, organizations and 
arbitrators, the pressure of historical relationships and the use of the comparative wage 
justice concept it is extremely difficult for a wage adjustment to be confined to a 
particular case. We do not intend that the doctrine of comparative wage justice—that 
universal test which means all things to all men—should be available to justify every 
wage increase whenever sought.”44

[140] The Commission also discussed new constraints on the datum point to be used for any 
work value assessment as follows:

“Another related matter which has caused problems is the time from which work value 
changes should be measured. Despite strong argument that one should go back to the 

                                               

41 (1972) 147 CAR 172 at 179-180
42 (1975) 171 CAR 79
43 Ibid at 83
44 Ibid at 83








[2018] FWCFB 7621

50

last ‘genuine’ work value assessment we consider this is an exercise which in itself 
could cause endless debate. We therefore adopt as a prima facie position the pragmatic 
approach of a Full Bench in the Municipal Officers Adelaide City Council case (31 
July 1975) when the Bench said ‘the words are intended to relate to the last movement 
in the award rates concerned apart from national wage and indexation’. That prima 
facie position can only be rebutted if a party demonstrates that special circumstances 
exist warranting a departure from it. Should an application be made for an earlier 
starting point we envisage that the issue would normally be heard and determined as a 
preliminary matter. Further where the application is successful and the starting point 
claimed is earlier than 1 January 1970 only changes that have occurred since 1 January 
1970 shall be taken into account and this is so even if there has never been a previous 
work value fixation. We do not agree that before a job has been given a work value 
there must have been some formal process or announcement. The mere existence of a 
rate in an award is evidence of the fact that the job has been valued even if only by 
acquiescence. We take this view because we believe that although we should allow 
some latitude as to starting point, if we left the matter completely open, people might 
seek to indulge in protracted unhelpful historical exercises.”45

[141] The Commission also emphasised two other propositions: first, that changes in work 
by themselves did not necessary lead to changes in work value and what was required a 
“significant net addition to work requirements” and, second, that the expression in the 
principle “the conditions under which the work was performed” was not intended to the non-
wage conditions of the award but rather to the environment in which the work was performed.

[142] In the May 1976 National Wage Case46 the Commission codified the above 
propositions into Principle 7(a), so that it read as follows:

“(7) In addition to the above increases, the only other grounds which would justify pay 
increases are:

(a) Changes in work value

Changes in work value being changes in the nature of the work, skill and 
responsibility required, or the conditions under which the work is performed. 
This would normally apply to some classifications in an award although in rare 
cases it might apply to all classifications.

(i) Prima facie the time from which work value changes should be 
measured is the last movement in the award rates concerned 
apart from National Wage and Indexation. That prima facie 
position can only be rebutted if a party demonstrates special 
circumstances and even then changes can go back only to 1 
January 1970.

                                               

45 Ibid at 83-4
46 (1976) 177 CAR 335








[2018] FWCFB 7621

51

(ii) Changes in work by themselves may not lead to changes in the 
value of work. The change should constitute a significant net 
addition to work requirements to warrant a wage increase.

(iii) Where it has been demonstrated that a change has taken place in 
accordance with the principles, an assessment will have to be 
made as to how that change should be measured in money 
terms.

(iv) The expression ‘the conditions under which the work is 
performed’ relates to the environment in which the work is 
done.

(v) In respect of new work for which there is no current rate, an 
appropriate rate may be struck in accordance with proper work 
evaluation.

(vi) Re-classification of existing jobs is to be determined in 
accordance with this principle.”

[143] It is important to observe that the wage-fixing principles were imposed on an award 
system in which wages rates had been developed on an award-by-award basis through ad hoc 
combinations of arbitrated work value decisions, consent settlements to industrial disputes 
and National Wage Cases. That what was being done involved an attempt to graft 
standardised wage fixing on to an existing system characterised by its irregularity was 
recognised at the time; for example in 1976 a Full Bench commented that: “The relevant 
background against which the indexation principle was introduced contained an irregular 
pattern which no system of wage fixation could entirely reconcile”.47

[144] The principles established in 1975 remained in place until 1981, when the wages 
indexation system was scrapped by the Commission in the face of a further wage explosion 
caused by claims made outside of the system. During the 1975-1981 period the system, 
notwithstanding the apparent restrictiveness of Principle 7(a), accommodated a “work value 
round” commencing in 1978 which resulted in a remarkably uniform flat $8 increase being 
granted across most awards. The exception was the 1979 decision of Staples J in relation to 
the Storeman and Packers (Wool Selling Brokers and Repackers) Award 1973.48 Having 
apparently been satisfied that the work of the relevant employees had changed in value, 
Staples J then considered the quantification of the wage increase to be awarded as follows:

“It is one thing to conclude that new minimum rates should now be prescribed. It is 
another to quantify the change. What shall be the measure? It may not be discovered 
in the profitability of the enterprise, not in the increased productivity of the relevant 
workforce. It may not be an adjustment to the burden of taxation of the wage-earner 
nor reflect any movement in the cost of living. It may not reinstate any losses due to 
partial indexation in the real worth of the original rate nor may it derive from a 
comparison with rates paid in other industries. It must not be extravagant or contrived, 

                                               

47 (1976) 176 CAR 17 at 17
48 (1979) 231 CAR 388








[2018] FWCFB 7621

52

nor may it be mindless or consequential upon changes elsewhere. The impact in 
economic terms must be negligible. It should help to reduce inflation. At the same 
time, it must stabilize industrial relations. For the quantification, then what shall I do? 
I am already reeling under the advice of the many prophets. There is no Polonius at 
hand to give me memorable precepts as he did Laertes when he fled the confusion. I 
shall simply select a figure as Tom Collins selected a day from his diary and we shall 
see what turns up. Such is life.”49

[145] The amounts awarded by Staples J ranged from $12.50 to $15.90 depending upon the 
classification. However the decision was overturned on appeal.50 In substitution for the wage 
increases ordered by Staples J, the Full Bench ordered that wages be increased by $8 per 
week.51

[146] Wage fixing principles were re-established in the 1983 National Wage Case52 under 
which the Accord era of wages fixation commenced. In its decision the Commission
emphasised that the work value principle to be established as part of the new wage fixing 
principles was to be “limited and genuine”,53 in the context of the general objective of 
limiting any award wage increases outside of National Wage Case increases as part of an 
accepted policy of wage and price restraint.54 This emphasis on wage restraint caused the 
Commission to reject a submission that awards covering female-dominated areas of work 
should be the subject of full work value assessments:

“The National Council of Women, the Union of Australian Women and the Women’s 
Electoral Lobby contended that in female occupational areas the implementation of 
the Commission’s equal pay decisions had not been accompanied by proper work 
value exercises. The WEL asked that there be provision for a re-evaluation of this 
work in any centralized system the Commission should introduce, such work value 
exercises to be carried out as the individual awards came up for variation or through 
an anomalies or inequities procedure. We consider that such large scale work value 
inquiries would clearly provide an opportunity for the development of additional tiers 
of wage increases, which would be inconsistent with the centralized system which we 
propose for the next two years and would also be inappropriate in the current state of 
unemployment especially among women. Moreover, many of the problems which the 
WEL has raised are a matter for management, unions and governments rather than for 
award provision.”

[147] The Commission also rejected an ACTU submission that the datum point for work 
value assessments should be (consistent with the positions stated in the 1967 Metal Trades 
Award decision of Gallagher J) the last wage increase for the award in question outside of 
national wage increases:

                                               

49 Ibid at 343
50 (1980) 233 CAR 365
51 Ibid at 372. The whole incident is described in the context of Staple J’s career on the bench in an article by Michael Kirby,

The Removal of Justice Staples and the Silent Forces of Industrial Relations, (1989) 31 JIR 334
52 (1983) 4 IR 429
53 Ibid at 451
54 Ibid at 441








[2018] FWCFB 7621

53

“The ACTU proposed a principle which is substantially similar to the above except that 
the prima facie datum point from which work value should be measured is not fixed in 
terms of the last movement in the award apart from national wage. Instead, the 
proposed prima facie position would require a party seeking the work value change ‘to 
demonstrate that the work or the alleged change in question has not been valued 
previously’. 

We foresee considerable difficulty with such a provision particularly in relation to 
rates which were determined by consent and without any formal work evaluation. In 
view of the extensive round of work value cases which commenced in 1978, we 
propose to restrict the datum point to the last work value adjustment affecting an 
award but in no case earlier than 1 January 1978. Care should be exercised to ensure 
that changes which were taken into account in any previous work value adjustments 
are not included in any future work evaluation under this Principle.”

[148] The effect of these conclusions was that there was to be no capacity to obtain wage 
increases based on any failure to properly assess work value which occurred prior to 1 
January 1978, including where this because of gender undervaluation. The work value 
principle which emerged from the 1983 National Wage Case decision was as follows:

“4. WORK VALUE CHANGES

(a) Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and 
responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in 
work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an 
alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of work should constitute such 
a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new 
classification.

These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work 
value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed 
in accordance with this Principle.

However rather than to create a new classification it may be more convenient in the 
circumstances of a particular case to fix a new rate for an existing classification or to 
provide for an allowance which is payable in addition to the existing rate for the 
classification. In such cases the same strict test must be applied.

(b) Where new work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by 
persons covered by a particular classification or where it is performed only by some of 
the persons covered by the classification, such new work should be compensated by a 
special allowance which is payable only when the new work is performed by a 
particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.

(c) The time from which work value changes should be measured is the last work 
value adjustment in the award under consideration but in no case earlier than 1 January 
1978. Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which were taken into account 
in any previous work value adjustments are not included in any work evaluation under 
this Principle.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

54

(d) Where a significant net alteration to work value has been established in accordance 
with this Principle, an assessment will have to be made as to how that alteration should 
be measured in money terms. Such assessment should normally be based on the 
previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work and the nature 
and extent of the change in work. However, where appropriate, comparisons may also 
be made with other wages and work requirements within the award or to wage 
increases for changed work requirements in the same classification in other awards 
provided the same changes have occurred.

(e) The expression “the conditions under which the work is performed” relates to the 
environment in which the work is done.

(f) The Commission should guard against contrived classifications and 
overclassification of jobs.

(g) Where through technological or other change the impact of work value change on 
the work force is widespread or general, the matter should be dealt with in national 
productivity cases under Principle 2.”55

[149] Notwithstanding the rejection of the submission of the women’s groups in the 1983 
National Wage Case decision that there be full work value-reassessments of awards applying 
to female-dominated areas of work, the Commission subsequently affirmed in the Nurses 
Comparable Worth Case56 that cases based on the 1972 equal pay principle could be 
advanced through the anomalies conference procedure provided for in the wage-fixing 
principles. However in doing so the Commission rejected any wider proposition that wages 
could be fixed on the basis of “comparable worth” between different types of work that were 
not related or similar.57  

[150] There were further significant changes to the approach taken to award wage claims 
based on work value in the period 1989 to 1991. In the National Wage Case August 198858

the Commission established a new “structural efficiency” principle which contemplated the 
examination of awards with a view, among other things, to “create appropriate relativities 
between different categories of workers within the award…” and “including properly fixed 
minimum rates for classifications in awards, related appropriately to one another, with any 
amounts in excess of these properly fixed minimum rates being expressed as supplementary 
payments”. This new approach was the subject of greater elaboration by the Australian 
Industrial Relations Commission in the National Wage Case February 1989 Review59, in 
which the Commission among things discussed how it was apply to the relationship between 
awards. Its consideration in this respect primarily arose in response to a proposal advanced by 
the ACTU for a new overarching framework of award wage fixation, which was described in 
the following terms:

                                               

55 Ibid at 472-3
56 (1986) 13 IR 108
57 Ibid at 113
58 (1988) 25 IR 170
59 (1989) 27 IR 196








[2018] FWCFB 7621

55

“It submitted that the Commission should approve in principle a national framework or 
‘blueprint’ which would involve restructuring all awards of the Commission to 
provide ‘consistent, coherent award structures’, based on training and skills acquired, 
and which would bear clear and appropriate work value relationships one to another. It 
illustrated its proposal by reference to possible restructuring results - at least as far as 
classification structures and training are concerned - in awards covering the building 
industry, metal workers, transport workers, storemen and clerks: these are key awards 
in the sense that their classifications arguably permeate all areas of industry.”60

[151] The Commission by observing that the then current award wage system contained 
“irregularities in rates of pay which must be dealt with”, and that this had pre-dated the 
introduction of wage indexation in 1975 as had been recognised at the time.61 The 
Commission went on to say:

“The result is there exist in federal awards widespread examples of the prescription of 
different rates of pay for employees performing the same work but this is only part of 
the problem. For too long there have existed inequitable relationships among various 
classifications of employees. That this situation exists can be traced to features of the 
industrial relations system such as different attitudes adopted in relation to the 
adjustment of minimum rates and paid rates awards; different attitudes taken to the 
inclusion of overaward elements in awards, be they minimum rates or paid rates 
awards; the inclusion of supplementary payments in some awards and not others; and 
the different attitudes taken to consent arrangements and arbitrated awards.
. . .
The situation we have described has been tolerated for too long and it is appropriate 
that it be corrected at this time. The fundamental purpose of the structural efficiency 
principle is to modernise awards in the interests of both employees and employers and 
in the interests of the Australian community: such modernisation without steps being 
taken to ensure stability as between those awards and their relevance to industry 
would, on past experience, seriously reduce the effectiveness of that modernisation.

Consequently, we endorse in principle the approach proposed by the ACTU though 
not necessarily the particular award relationships submitted in this case. That is a 
matter which we expect to be the subject of further debate in the forthcoming 
proceedings.

This means that minimum rates awards will be reviewed to ensure that classification 
rates and supplementary payments in an award bear a proper relationship to 
classification rates and supplementary payments in other minimum rates awards.”62

[152] It is apparent that the concept being dealt with in the August 1988 decision involved 
the alignment of benchmark classifications in key minimum rates awards based on work value 
considerations. This concept of cross-award alignments in pay rates was the subject of further 
development in the National Wage Case August 1989.63 One of the two main issues which 

                                               

60 Ibid at 199-200
61 Ibid at 200
62 Ibid at 200-201
63 (1989) 30 IR 81








[2018] FWCFB 7621

56

was said to require determination in that decision was “how the approach endorsed in 
principle by the Commission for ensuring stable relationships between awards and their 
relevance to industry is best translated into practice.”64 In relation to this issue, the 
Commission gave consideration to a proposal advanced by the ACTU to establish a fixed set 
of relativities in terms of total pay rates (minimum classification rates plus supplementary 
payments) across five major awards. The Commission’s conclusions on this issue were as 
follows:

“Without firm guidance on appropriate relativities, individual structural efficiency 
exercises could create situations which would not only continue but possibly worsen 
the very position that is required to be rectified. For this reason we reject the 
proposition that the question of relativities should be left completely until the details 
of structural efficiency exercises are completed.

Subject to what we say later in this decision, we have decided that the minimum 
classification rate to be established over time for a metal industry tradesperson and a 
building industry tradesperson should be $356.30 per week with a $50.70 per week 
supplementary payment. The minimum classification rate of $356.30 per week would 
reflect the final effect of the structural efficiency adjustment determined by this 
decision.

Minimum classification rates and supplementary payments for other classifications 
throughout awards should be set in individual cases in relation to these rates on the 
basis of relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular 
work is normally performed. The Commission will only approve relativities in a 
particular award when satisfied that they are consistent with the rates and relativities 
fixed for comparable classifications in other awards. Before that requirement can be 
satisfied clear definitions will have to be established.

We are not prepared to approve specific wage relativities proposed by the ACTU on 
behalf of the trade union movement. Nevertheless, we consider it appropriate for 
relativities to be established for both minimum classification rates and supplementary 
payments for the following key classifications within the ranges set out below:

% of the tradesperson rate

Metal industry worker, grade 4 90-93 
Metal industry worker, grade 3 84-88 
Metal industry worker, grade 2 78-82 
Metal industry worker, grade 1 72-76 
Storeman/packer 88-92 
Driver, 3-6 tonnes 88-92.”65

[153] The Commission noted that there was inadequate material before it to establish 
relativities for clerical classifications,66 and went on to consider the implementation 

                                               

64 Ibid at 81, 84
65 Ibid at 94
66 Ibid at 94








[2018] FWCFB 7621

57

arrangements for the wage increases (referred to as minimum rate adjustments) necessary to 
give effect its conclusions.67 It stated the objectives of the reforms it wished to implement as 
follows:

“These exercises provide an opportunity for the parties to display the maturity required 
to overcome the wage instabilities with which the community is only too familiar. It 
also provides the opportunity to take an essential step towards institutional reform 
which is a prerequisite to a more flexible system of wage fixation. As part of that 
future we envisage that minimum classification rates will not alter their relative 
position one to another unless warranted on work value grounds.”68

[154] Later in the decision the Commission discussed whether, in the light of the 
establishment of the structural efficiency principle, any of the other wage fixing principles 
should be modified. Critically, the Commission decided that “structural efficiency exercises 
should incorporate all past work value considerations”.69 The new Structural Efficiency 
principle referred to structural efficiency exercises as involving, among other things, creating 
appropriate relativities between different categories of workers with the award and at 
enterprise level” and “including properly fixed minimum rates for classifications in awards, 
related appropriately to one another …”, and expressly required that structural efficiency 
exercises should incorporate all past work value considerations. A separate new principle was 
established for the implementation of minimum rate adjustments. However the datum point 
requirement in paragraph (c) of the Work Value Changes principle was not at this stage 
modified.

[155] That modification came in the National Wage Case April 199170, in which the 
Commission reaffirmed that “minimum classification rates, once reviewed and fixed in an 
appropriate relationship, will not be moved from that relative position unless changes are 
warranted on work value grounds”.71 Consequential upon that position, the Commission 
determined that any future assessment of change in the nature of work of a particular 
classification in a future award would be measured from the date of the second structural 
efficiency adjustment allowable in accordance with the National Wage Case August 1989.72

Hence the Work Value Changes Principle was modified so as to alter paragraph (c) and add a 
new paragraph (d) (with the following paragraphs correspondingly re-designated) as follows:

“(c) The time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is, 
unless extraordinary circumstances can be demonstrated in special case 
proceedings, the date of operation of the second structural efficiency allowable 
under the 7 August 1989 National Wage case decision.

(d) Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which were or should have 
been taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a 

                                               

67 Ibid at 95-96
68 Ibid at 96
69 Ibid at 99
70 (1991) 36 IR 120
71 Ibid at 160-161
72 Ibid at 172








[2018] FWCFB 7621

58

structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under 
this principle.”

[156] Subject only to the narrow exception provided by the capacity to mount a “special 
case”, the effect of this modification was that, once an award had been subject to the 
structural efficiency process in which, among other things, classification in minimum rates 
awards were to be fixed in appropriate relativities with other classifications within the award 
and in other awards, no adjustment on work value grounds was permissible other than on the 
basis of changes to work which occurred after the structural efficiency exercise had been 
completed. Importantly, the new paragraph (d) in the Work Value Changes Principle 
prevented any “double-counting” not only of work changes which were taken into account in 
the structural efficiency exercise, but those which should have been taken into account, 
whether they actually were or not. This meant, for example, that the full work value 
assessment of awards covering female-dominated areas of work which was sought by various 
women’s groups in the National Wage Case 1983 was permanently foreclosed (subject again 
only to the limited capacity to advance a special case).

[157] The principles applicable to the proper fixation of minimum rates in awards was the 
subject of further consideration in the Paid Rates Review decision of a Full Bench of the 
AIRC issued on 20 October 1998.73 This review was necessitated by application for the 
Commission to exercise its discretionary power under item 51(4) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of 
the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to convert paid rates 
awards into minimum rates awards by the establishment of properly-fixed minimum rates of 
pay. The Full Bench determined that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, all paid 
rates awards should be converted to minimum rates awards (emphasis added):

“We have decided that in principle all awards which provide for rates of pay which are 
not operating, or not intended to operate, as minimum rates and which do not bear a 
proper work value relationship to award rates which are properly fixed minima, 
should be subject to a conversion process so that they do contain properly fixed 
minimum rates of pay.”

[158] The Full Bench characterised the minimum rates adjustment process which had arisen 
from the National Wage Case August 1989 in the following terms:

“The MRA principle was designed to establish a consistent pattern of minimum rates in 
awards covering similar work thereby removing inequities and providing a stable 
foundation for enterprise bargaining. That objective is as important now, perhaps even 
more important, than it was in 1989.”

[159] The requirements for the fixation of minimum rates which flowed from the Paid Rates 
Review decision were summarised by an AIRC Full Bench in Child Care Industry (Australian 
Capital Territory) Award 199874 in the following terms:

                                               

73 Print Q7661
74 PR954938








[2018] FWCFB 7621

59

“[155] In the context of the matter before us, the principles established in the Paid 
Rates Review decision mandate a three step process for the determination of properly 
fixed minimum rates:

1. The key classification in the relevant award is to be fixed by reference to 
appropriate key classifications in awards which have been adjusted in 
accordance with the MRA process with particular reference to the current rates 
for the relevant classifications in the Metal Industry Award. In this regard the 
relationship between the key classification and the Engineering Tradesperson 
Level 1 (the C10 level) is the starting point.

2. Once the key classification rate has been properly fixed, the other rates in the 
award are set by applying the internal award relativities which have been 
established, agreed or maintained.

3. If the existing rates are too low they should be increased so that they are 
properly fixed minima.”

[160] In the same decision the Full Bench gave consideration to a claim, advanced under the 
Work Value Changes principle, for increases to the wages of child care workers. The Full 
Bench referred to the matter taken into account in assessing changes in work value by Senior 
Commissioner Taylor in the 1968 Vehicle Industry Award decision (which we have quoted 
above), and then set out a number of propositions derived from cases decided under the Work 
Value Changes principle (footnotes omitted):

“[189] The principle makes it clear that changes in work, by themselves, may not lead 
to an increase in wages. In State Electricity Commission of Victoria v The Federated 
Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Print G7498), a Full Bench of the Commission 
expressed this limitation in the following terms:

"In all categories of work except perhaps the most simple, changes become 
evident with time. It is in the nature of things that new methods of doing the 
same thing evolve with time, and that skills which qualify a person for a 
particular category of work may become fully tested, or in some cases the work 
may thereby be made easier. However it is essential that such changes are not 
mistaken for genuine work value change."

[190] Previous decisions of the Commission suggest that a range of factors may, 
depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the assessment of whether or not the 
changes in question constitute the required "significant net addition to work 
requirements". The following considerations are relevant in this regard:

 Rapidly changing technology, dramatic or unanticipated changes which 
result in a need for new skills and/or increased responsibility may justify a 
wage increase on work value grounds. But progressive or evolutionary 
change is insufficient. 

 An increase in the skills, knowledge or other expertise required to 
adequately undertake the duties concerned demonstrates an increase in 
work value. 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

60

 The mere introduction of a statutory requirement to hold a certificate of 
competency does not of itself constitute a significant net addition to work 
requirements. It must be demonstrated that there has been some change in 
the work itself or in the skills and/or responsibility required. However, 
where additional training is required to become certified and hence to fulfil 
a statutory requirement a wage increase may be warranted. 

 A requirement to exercise care and caution is, of itself, insufficient to 
warrant a work value increase. But an increase in the level of 
responsibility required to be exercised may warrant a wage increase on 
work value grounds. Such a change may be demonstrated by a requirement 
to work with less supervision.

 The requirement to exercise a quality control function may constitute a 
significant net addition to work requirements when associated with 
increased accountability.

 The fact that the emphasis on some aspects of the work has changed does 
not in itself constitute a significant net addition to work requirements.

 The introduction of a new training program or the necessity to undertake 
additional training is illustrative of the increased level of skill required due 
to the change in the nature of the work. But keeping abreast of changes 
and developments in any trade or profession is part of the requirements of 
that trade or profession and generally only some basic changes in the 
educational requirements can be regarded, of itself, as constituting a 
change in work value.

 Increased workload generally goes to the issue of manning levels not work 
value. But, where an increase in workload leads to increased pressure on 
skills and the speed with which vital decisions must be made then it may 
be a relevant consideration. 

[191] The principle provides, in paragraph (d), that where a significant net addition to 
work value has been established an assessment will have to be made as to how that 
addition should be measured in monetary terms. Such an assessment should normally 
be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work, 
and the nature and extent of the change in work. However, it is open to the arbitrator 
to make comparisons with other wages and work requirements within the award, and 
in other awards, provided such comparisons are fair, proper and reasonable in all the 
circumstances. In particular, regard may be had to the wage increases ascribed to 
comparable changes in work value in other areas. Care must be taken in relation to 
making a comparison with a provision found in a consent award.”

[161] In the ACT Child Care Decision the Full Bench found that there had been a significant 
net addition to work requirements since the 1990 datum point such as to satisfy the 
requirements of the Work Value Changes Principle. The Full Bench also decided that, based 
on the Australian Qualifications Framework, that minimum pay alignments should be 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

61

established between the child care awards under consideration and the Metal Industry Award 
between classifications with equivalent training and qualification levels:

“[181] A central feature of this case is the alignment of the Child Care Certificate III 
and Diploma levels in the ACT and Victorian Awards with the appropriate 
comparators in the Metal Industry Award.

[182] We have considered all of the evidence and submissions in respect of this issue. 
In our view the rate at the AQF Diploma level in the ACT and Victorian 
Awards should be linked to the C5 level in the Metal Industry Award. It is also 
appropriate that there be a nexus between the CCW level 3 on commencement 
classification in the ACT Award (and the Certificate III level in the Victorian Award) 
and the C10 level in the Metal Industry Award.

[183] In reaching this conclusion we have considered - as contended by the Employers 
- the conditions under which work is performed. But contrary to the Employers' 
submissions this consideration does not lead us to conclude that child care workers 
with qualifications at the same AQF level as workers under the Metal Industry 
Award should be paid less. If anything the nature of the work performed by child care 
workers and the conditions under which that work is performed suggest that they 
should be paid more, not less, than their Metal Industry Award counterparts.”

[162] The Work Value Changes principle established in the National Wage Case April 1991
remained unchanged until wage fixing principles became redundant when the AIRC was 
stripped of its minimum wage-fixing functions by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work 
Choices) Act 2005. The concept of work value then played no part in wage fixation until the 
enactment of the FW Act in 2009.

[163] It is against that background that the way in which s 156(3) and (4) are properly to be 
construed and applied may be considered. A number of propositions may be stated in that 
context. The first is that the effect of s 156(3) is to establish a jurisdictional prerequisite for 
the exercise of power to vary minimum wages in a modern award in the conduct of a 4 yearly 
review of modern awards, namely the reaching of a state of satisfaction on the part of the 
Commission that the variation is “justified by work value reasons”. 

[164] Second, because the jurisdictional prerequisite is expressed in terms of the 
Commission’s “satisfaction” concerning whether a variation is “justified” by the prescribed 
type of reasons - a requirement which involves an element of subjectivity and about which 
reasonable minds may differ - it requires the formation of a broad evaluative judgment 
involving the exercise of a discretion.75

[165] Third, the definition of “work value reasons” in s 156(4) requires only that the reasons 
justifying the amount to be paid for a particular kind of work be “related to any of the 
following” matters set out in paragraphs (a)-(c). The expression “related to” is one of broad 
import that requires a sufficient connection or association between two subject matters. The 
degree of the connection required is a matter for judgment depending on the facts of the case, 

                                               

75 See e.g. Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR at 118-119 per Gibbs J; Coal and Allied v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [18]-[20], 
[28] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ








[2018] FWCFB 7621

62

but the connection must be relevant and nor remote or accidental.76 The subject matters 
between which there must be a sufficient connection are, on the one hand, the reasons for the 
pay rate and, on the other hand, any of the three matters identified in paragraphs (a)-(c) – that 
is, any one or more of the three matters.

[166] Fourth, although the three matters identified - the nature of the work, the level of skill 
or responsibility involved in doing the work, and the conditions under which the work is done 
- clearly import the fundamental criteria used to assess work value changes under the wage 
fixing principles which operated from 1975 to 1981 and 1983 to 2006, the legislature in 
enacting s 156(4) chose not to import the additional requirements contained in those wage-
fixing principle. For example, as was observed in the Equal Remuneration Case 2015,77 s 
156(4) does not contain any requirement that the work value reasons consist of identified 
changes in work value measured from a fixed datum point. The Full Bench in that matter 
said:

“[292] … We see no reason in principle why a claim that the minimum rates of pay in a 
modern award undervalue the work to which they apply for gender-related reasons 
could not be advanced for consideration under s 156(3) or s 157(2). Those provisions 
allow the variation of such minimum rates for ‘work value reasons’, which expression 
is defined broadly enough in s 156(4) to allow a wide-ranging consideration of any 
contention that, for historical reasons and/or on the application of an indicia approach, 
undervaluation has occurred because of gender inequity. There is no datum point 
requirement in that definition which would inhibit the Commission from identifying 
any gender issue which has historically caused any female-dominated occupation or 
industry currently regulated by a modern award to be undervalued. The pay equity 
cases which have been successfully prosecuted in the NSW and Queensland 
jurisdictions and to which reference has earlier been made were essentially work value 
cases, and the equal remuneration principles under which they were considered and 
determined were likewise, in substance, extensions of well-established work value 
principles. It seems to us that cases of this nature can readily be accommodated under s
156(3) or s 157(2). Whether or not such a case is successful will, of course, depend on 
the evidence and submissions in the particular proceeding.”

[167] Likewise, s 156(4) did not incorporate the test in the wage-fixing principles that the 
change in the nature of work should constitute such a significant net addition to work 
requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification. In substance, section 156(3) 
and (4) leave it to the Commission to exercise a broad and relatively unconstrained judgment 
as to what may constitute work value reasons justifying an adjustment to minimum rates of 
pay similar to the position which applied prior to the establishment of wage fixing principles 
in 1975.

[168] Fifth, it would be open to the Commission have regard, in the exercise of its 
discretion, to considerations which have been taken into account in previous work value cases 
under differing past statutory regimes. For example, although as already stated s.156(4) 
contains no requirement for the measurement of work value changes from a fixed datum 

                                               

76 Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 387 per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and 

Hayne JJ
77 [2015] FWCFB 8200, 256 IR 362








[2018] FWCFB 7621

63

point, we consider it likely that the Commission would usually take into account whether any 
feature of the nature of work, the level of skill or responsibility involved in performing the 
work or the conditions under which it is done has previously been taken into account in a 
proper way (that is, in a way which is free of gender bias and any other improper 
considerations) in assessing wages in the relevant modern award or its predecessor in order to 
ensure that there is no “double counting”. Likewise, we consider that the considerations 
referred to in paragraph [190] of the ACT Child Care Decision, which we have earlier quoted, 
may be of relevance in particular cases, as may considerations in other authoritative past work 
value cases.

[169] Finally, even if the jurisdictional prerequisite in s 156(3) is satisfied, it remains the 
case that the Commission must, as required by s 138, ensure that the inclusion of the varied 
minimum wages term in the relevant modern award would be necessary to achieve the 
modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective. In this connection, it may be 
noted that the Full Bench in 4 yearly review of modern awards - Real Estate Industry Award 
2010 said that where the wage rates in a modern award have not previously been the subject 
of a proper work value consideration, there can be no implicit assumption that at the time the 
award was made its wage rates were consistent with the modern awards objective.78

History of award regulation of pharmacists

[170] There was no federal award regulation of pharmacists prior to 1994. The first federal 
award was the Community Pharmacy (Victoria) Interim Award 1994,79 made by the AIRC 
following the referral by the State of Victoria of its industrial relation powers to the 
Commonwealth and dispute findings made in 1993. This interim award, made by Drake DP
on 27 May 1994, applied only to community pharmacies in Victoria, and replicated the wages 
and conditions previously prescribed by an award of the former Industrial Relations 
Commission of Victoria, the Chemist Shops Award (Vic) 1987.

[171] In further proceedings in 1995, outstanding issues concerning the interim 1994 award 
were arbitrated before Drake DP. The PGA sought, as a first step towards the establishment of 
a national award, that the interim 1994 award be extensively modified to include a new 
classification structure (derived from relevant the NSW State award) and adjustments to 
penalty and overtime rates. These changes were opposed by the Salaried Pharmacists’ 
Association (SPA). In a decision issued on 30 May 1995,80 the Deputy President declined to 
make the major changes to classifications and penalty rates sought by the PGA, but made
some other modifications. The new award which resulted was the Community Pharmacy 
(Victoria) Interim Award 1995.81 There were a number of “leave reserved” matters identified 
in the award, including classifications, pay and pay relativities, which were to be the subject 
of subsequent arbitration,  however agreement between the industrial parties was not reached.

[172] These outstanding matters were the subject of a hearing before Commissioner O’Shea 
in the following year, and were determined by him in a decision issued by him on 6 March 

                                               

78 [2017] FWCFB 3543 at [80]
79 Print L413
80 Print  M2399
81 Print M6246








[2018] FWCFB 7621

64

1996.82 The key conclusion in the Commissioner’s decision was that pharmacists covered by 
the Community Pharmacy (Victoria) Interim Award 1995 should have a classification 
structure based upon the reference point of pay rates for professional scientists covered by 
Part IV of the Metal Industry Award 1976. The Commissioner relevantly stated:

“The Commission approaches its determination of this matter in the context of already 
lengthy proceedings which have produced some measure of agreement and have 
required some arbitration, but which clearly still have a considerable way to go by 
reason of the SPA's stated objective of a national award of the Commission covering 
the retail/community pharmacy sector.
. . .

Of particular significance in regard to this matter is the "first award" principle and the 
Commission, noting that this award is a minimum rates award, will fix the matters at 
issue so that the award meets the needs of the particular industry or enterprise while 
ensuring that employees' interests are also properly taken into account. It is also 
relevant for the Commission to ensure that appropriate structural efficiency principles 
are or have been applied. I include here, considerations of proper alignment by way of 
the application of a minimum rates adjustment process.

When one applies these considerations to the submissions of the parties in these 
proceedings one can see a degree of similarity but also some clear divergence. What is 
apparent is that the rates and classification structure of professional scientists (Metal 
Industry Award 1976 - Part IV) have some legitimacy as a reference point for 
pharmacists employed under this award.

I say this is apparent because, as the SPA demonstrated, the fact was acknowledged by 
the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission at an earlier point in the wage-fixing 
history of this award and the PGA/VECCI submissions in these proceedings 
acknowledged at least some points of comparison between pharmacists and 
professional scientists.
. . .
An acceptance of the relevance of Part IV of the Metal Industry Award does not 
necessarily mean a direct comparison or direct transposition of rates between the two 
areas of professional skills. It does, however, provide the Commission with a strong 
reference point for an assessment of appropriate rates.

A further reference point, given the history and likely developments in these 
proceedings, are rates for like work elsewhere. First award principles allow the 
Commission to have regard for a variety of factors in assessing what are fair and 
reasonable minimum rates vis-a-vis other awards and relative skills and 
responsibilities.

. . .
On the basis of the material before it, the Commission accepts the submissions of 
VECCI that the base level of Pharmacist (first year of experience) can be aligned with 
a Professional Scientist (4/5 year course) on the basis of qualifications and the exercise 
of comparable skills. But a consideration of the duties of a pharmacist compared with 
the relevant definitions in Part IV of the Metal Industry Award reveals a somewhat 

                                               

82 Print M9831








[2018] FWCFB 7621

65

higher level of responsibility discharged by a pharmacist dispensing to the public. A 
direct alignment would produce a rate of 130% of the tradesperson's rate, as 
contemplated by VECCI, but recognition of the responsibility differential requires a 
higher rate to be struck.

After consideration of the SPA's submissions, the Commission determines that a fair 
and reasonable rate for a first year Pharmacist is a relativity of 140% of the 
tradesperson's rate.

As to the Pharmacist (second year and thereafter) classification, as currently defined in 
the interim award, there needs to be a recognition of the greater capacities that the 
accrual of experience brings. The current interim award provides a rate some 7% 
above the base and the new differential should not be any less than that. At present, 
under the interim award a pharmacist (thereafter) receives a minimum rate of $571.40 
per week which is $35.70 per week above the first year pharmacist minimum rate.

A determination of a relativity of 150% would give a wage differential of some $41 
per week. In all the circumstances and taking some guidance from salary patterns for 
pharmacists in other States, I believe this would be appropriate and the Commission so 
determines.

In determining the rates above, the Commission notes that they are broadly 
comparable with the range of rates in other States (Exhibit PGA 2). In the course of its 
submissions (transcript, page 376) the PGA indicated a preparedness to look at the 
140/150 end of the relativities provided current penalty rates were varied in the Guild's 
favour. This matter is addressed later in this decision.

Rates for the supervisory levels within the classification structure can then be properly 
set by broadly aligning the two higher classifications in the interim award with 
Professional Scientist Level 3 and Professional Scientist Level 4 respectively from 
Part IV of the Metal Industry Award.

Given the Commission's acceptance of retaining a tiered structure to reflect differences 
in the size and characteristics of businesses within the industry, the top tier of the 
Pharmacist-in-charge (as presently defined in the interim award) can be aligned with 
the Professional Scientist Level 3 rate at $767.00 per week which is a relativity of 
180% of the tradesperson's rate.

It is appropriate to keep some differential between the Pharmacist (thereafter) rate and 
the bottom tier of the Pharmacist-in-charge, which the Commission determines will be 
set at 160%. The middle tier of the Pharmacist-in-charge (as currently defined) is 
determined to be set at a relativity of 170%.

The rates determined above are higher at the lower tiers than those advocated by 
VECCI but are capped at the top tier as advanced in Exhibit VECCI 2. The rates set a 
relativity of 160%, 170% and 180% for the three tiers of Pharmacist-in-charge as 
currently defined in the interim award and are broadly comparable with the interstate 
comparisons drawn to the Commission's attention in Exhibit PGA 2.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

66

As to the classification of Pharmacist Manager, the same considerations apply. The 
definitions and structure in the interim award will be retained and the top tier of the 
classification will be aligned with the rate of $892.10 per week (a relativity of 210%) 
for the Professional Scientist Level 4 in Part IV of the Metal Industry Award.

To retain a differential above the top tier of the Pharmacist-in-charge, the bottom tier 
of the Pharmacist Manager (as currently defined in the interim award) is determined to 
be a relativity of 190%, with the middle tier (as currently defined) being 200%.
. . .

In summary, the Commission determines that the Victorian award should have salary 
levels based on the relativities of the metal tradesperson's rate as follows. In all cases, 
the existing definitions in the interim award will be carried over.

Pharmacist (1st year) 140%
Pharmacist (2nd year and thereafter) 150%
Pharmacist-in-charge

(i) 160%
(ii) 170%
(iii) 180%
Pharmacist Manager

(i) 190%
(ii) 200%
(iii) 210%”83

[173] We interpolate at this point that the classification structure for professional scientists 
in Part IV of the Metal Industry Award that was used as the reference point in the above 
decision was established pursuant to the structural efficiency principle and by consent of the 
parties in a decision of Deputy President Keogh of 7 May 1990.84 The new structure created
for professional scientists aligned them with the classification structure in Part 1 of the Metal 
Industry Award, and established percentage relativities with the C10 classification, as shown 
in the following table.

METAL, ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED 
INDUSTRIES AWARD 1998

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND 
SCIENTISTS AWARD 1998

Class’n 
Number

Classification 
Title

Minimum 
Training 
Requirement

Wage 
Relativity 
to C10*

Classification 
Title

Minimum Training 
Requirement

C1 Professional 
Engineer 
Professional 
Scientist

Degree 180/210% Level 3 
professional 
scientist

A professional scientist 
performing duties requiring 
the application of mature 
professional scientific 
knowledge. With scope for 
individual accomplishment 
and co-ordination of more 
difficult assignments, the 
professional scientist deals 
with problems for which it is 
necessary to modify 

                                               

83 Ibid at p 4-8
84 Print J2540; see also the consequential order in Print J3512








[2018] FWCFB 7621

67

METAL, ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED 
INDUSTRIES AWARD 1998

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND 
SCIENTISTS AWARD 1998

Class’n 
Number

Classification 
Title

Minimum 
Training 
Requirement

Wage 
Relativity 
to C10*

Classification 
Title

Minimum Training 
Requirement

established guides and devise 
new approaches.

OR

A wage group C2(b) employee 
who has completed additional 
accredited education and 
training so as to reach a 
standard equivalent to a four 
year degree and who is 
required to perform the work 
set out above.

C2(b) Principal 
Technical 
Officer

Advanced Diploma 
or equivalent and 
sufficient additional 
training so as to 
enable the employee 
to meet the 
requirements of the 
relevant 
classification 
definition in clause 
1.2 of this schedule 
and to perform 
work within the 
scope of this level.

160% Level 2 
professional 
scientist

Following development 
through C5 or C6 is an 
experienced scientist(as 
defined) who plans and 
conducts professional 
scientific work without 
detailed supervision, but with 
guidance on unusual features 
and who is usually engaged on 
more responsible scientific 
assignments requiring 
substantial professional 
experience.

OR

A wage group C5 or C6 
employee who has completed 
additional accredited 
education and training so as to 
reach a standard equivalent to 
a four year degree and who is 
required to perform the work 
set out above.

C3 Engineering 
Associate -
Level II

Advanced Diploma 
of Engineering, or 
equivalent.

145%

C4 Engineering 
Associate 3rd 
Year of -
Level 1

80% towards an 
Advanced Diploma 
of Engineering

135%

C5 Advanced 
Engineering 
Tradesperson 
- Level II

Diploma of 
Engineering -
Advanced Trade, or 
equivalent.

130% Level 1 
professional 
scientist (4 or 
5 year degree)

The graduate scientist (as 
defined) commencement level.

C6 Advanced 
Engineering 
Tradesperson 
- Level 1

C10 + 80% towards 
a Diploma of 
Engineering -
Advanced Trade

125% Level 1 
professional 
scientist (3 
year degree)

The graduate scientist (as 
defined) commencement level.








[2018] FWCFB 7621

68

METAL, ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED 
INDUSTRIES AWARD 1998

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND 
SCIENTISTS AWARD 1998

Class’n 
Number

Classification 
Title

Minimum 
Training 
Requirement

Wage 
Relativity 
to C10*

Classification 
Title

Minimum Training 
Requirement

C10 Engineering 
Tradesperson 
- Level I

Recognised Trade 
Certificate or 
Certificate III in 
Engineering -
Mechanical Trade, 
or Certificate III in 
Engineering -
Fabrication Trade, 
or Certificate III in 
Engineering -
Electrical/Electronic 
Trade or equivalent

100%

[174] One thing is immediately apparent from the above table: professional scientists below 
Level 3, who require an undergraduate degree, were not aligned with the Part 1 structure on 
the basis of their qualifications and were not assigned the C1 classification with a starting 
relativity of 180%. The effect of Commissioner O’Shea’s decision to set rates for pharmacists 
based on professional scientists effectively imported this difficulty into the Community 
Pharmacy (Victoria) Interim Award. Thus, for example, the base level, degree-qualified 
pharmacist was assigned a 140% relativity to the C10 classification. This lined them up at 
below the C3 classification, which was the starting point for an employee with an Advanced 
Diploma under Part 1 of the Metal Industry Award.

[175] The first national community pharmacists’ award, the Community Pharmacy Award 
1996, was made by consent on 24 December 1996 by Commissioner O’Shea.85 The 
classifications and rates of pay in this award differed for each State and Territory and 
reflected the awards applicable in each State and Territory at the time. This award was 
subsequently the subject of review in 1998 pursuant to the “award simplification” provisions 
of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth). The review 
required, among other things, that the Commission ensure the award contained proper fixed 
minimum rates of pay. The parties negotiated a new award containing an agreed classification 
structure for all states and territories except Western Australia,86 and the new Community 
Pharmacy Award 1998 was made by Commissioner Hingley on 29 June 1998.87 The agreed 
classification structure modified that previously determined by Commissioner O’Shea 
contained for the Community Pharmacy (Victoria) Interim Award by adding a classification 
of “Experienced Pharmacist”, but apart from this the structure and the relativities used 
broadly reflected that developed in the 1996 decision.

[176] When the Pharmacy Award was developed as part of the award modernisation process 
conducted pursuant to Part 10A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the classification 
structure adopted simplified that contained in the Community Pharmacy Award 1996. The 
classification “Pharmacist after first year of experience” was removed, as were the higher 
grade 1 and grade 2 rates in both of the classification of “Pharmacist in Charge” and 

                                               

85 Print N7370
86 There was a separate and simplified classification structure for Western Australia.
87 Print Q2258








[2018] FWCFB 7621

69

“Pharmacist Manager”. The remaining classifications, and their existing rates and relativities, 
were carried over to the Pharmacy Award. The classification structure has not since been 
modified, and the rates of pay have been adjusted in accordance with Annual Wage Review 
decisions.

Consideration of the APESMA Case

[177] The APESMA advanced its case primarily on the basis that the Pharmacy Award and 
its predecessor, the pre-modern Community Pharmacy Award 1996, had last been the subject 
of work value consideration in 1998, and that changes in the nature of the work and the level 
of skill and responsibility of community pharmacists since that time justified the wage 
increases it sought. In essence the APESMA’s case was structured on the basis of a datum 
point even though, as earlier explained, that was not a necessary element for satisfaction of 
the jurisdictional prerequisite in s 156(3). In closing submissions, counsel for the APESMA 
submitted that the task for the Commission was to assess the work value of pharmacists under 
the Pharmacy Award as it was at the time of the assessment, not whether there had been a 
change in work value. That is an approach available under s 156(3) as we have earlier 
construed it, but it is not fundamentally consistent with the evidentiary case presented by the 
APESMA. We will first address the case actually advanced by the APESMA, and then give 
consideration to some broader issues concerning the work value of pharmacists.

[178] It is necessary at the outset to make some comment upon the witness evidence given in 
the course of the proceedings. We consider that all of the witnesses before us endeavoured to 
give us truthful and accurate information about the work of pharmacists, but the utility of their 
evidence differed. Firstly, we consider that the witnesses called by the PGA - Ms Willis, Mr 
Pricolo and Mr Loukas - gave evidence of significant probative value. They had all worked in 
the community pharmacy industry since well before 1998, had been employed as pharmacists 
before becoming pharmacy owners, and had the benefit of a broad perspective drawn from 
operating pharmacies employing numbers of pharmacists over long periods of time. It is not 
clear that any of them would be affected by the success of the APESMA’s claim: Ms Willis’ 
pharmacies were not covered by the Pharmacy Award since they remained in the Western 
Australian industrial relations system, and Mr Pricolo’s and Mr Loukas’s pharmacies paid 
above-award wages to their pharmacists. In relation to the APESMA’s lay witnesses, Ms 
Malakozis, Ms Madden, Ms McCallum and Mr Yap were able to give evidence concerning 
their experiences as employed pharmacists over long periods of time, pre-dating 1998 in the 
case of all of them except Mr Yap, and thus were able to give a proper longitudinal 
description of changes to their work. However, their perspective was necessarily narrower 
since they could only give evidence concerning their personal experiences and not those of 
any broader group of pharmacists. The evidence of Ms Thomson, Mr Walls and Ms Le was of 
lesser utility because of the comparatively short time they have worked in the profession. 
Further, they gave evidence that was not necessarily consistent with the APESMA’s case; for 
example Mr Le, who was registered as a pharmacist only in 2011, gave evidence that when he 
commenced practice his role was predominantly dispensing medicines and that the change 
relied upon had occurred since that time. This evidence was inconsistent with that of other of 
the APESMA’s witnesses, who described the change as having occurred earlier over a longer 
period of time.

[179] The two-part expert Report prepared by Professors Krass and Aslani was problematic 
in a number of respects. They were commissioned by the APESMA to prepare a report 
analysing changes in the work value of pharmacists since 1998, and the instructions provided 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

70

to them by the APESMA gave what we consider to be an accurate summary of the nature of 
the proceedings currently before the Commission and the process by which work value was to 
be assessed in the industrial context. It is far from clear to us that the Report was properly 
responsive to those instructions. The first part of the Report in particular was expressly stated 
to be concerned only with the delivery of “cognitive pharmaceutical services” and did not 
attempt to undertake a holistic analysis of the work value of pharmacists, noting that it was 
part of the PGA’s case that some elements of pharmacists’ work associated with the 
prescription of medicines had become less onerous. Further, it is apparent that the first part of 
the Report took a heterodox view of work value, in that the “value” of pharmacists’ work was
primarily analysed by reference to its value to the community and the health outcomes it 
produced rather than being concerned only with the nature of the work and the level of skill 
and responsibility being exercised. The second part of the Report was based on interviews 
with a sample of pharmacists, but if suffered from the defects that, first, what was obtained 
from the interviews was necessarily in the nature of subjective perceptions rather than 
objective information and, secondly, the nature of the work experience (such as the length of 
time spent in the profession) of the interview participants was not provided. Nonetheless the 
Report as a whole contained a great deal of useful information concerning new programs and 
services in the pharmacy industry and the extent to which individual pharmacists were 
involved in the delivery of those.

[180] The expert evidence of Professor Clarke provided a valuable overview of the highly 
regulated nature of the pharmacy industry, but was unable to answer the question posed to 
him by the APESMA concerning whether the grant of its claim would have a significant 
negative impact of the financial sustainability of community pharmacies – a question which, it 
seems to us, could not be answered without him being provided with or having access to data 
about the extent to which the market wage rates for pharmacists exceed the minimum award 
rate. Data of that nature was provided in the evidence given by Mr Crowther concerning the 
surveys conducted for the APESMA. Those surveys gave evidence concerning market rates 
for pharmacists which we accept, noting that the results of those surveys (showing a decline 
in market rates over the last five years) were confirmed by the UTS Pharmacy Barometer 
(discussed in the first part of the Report of Professors Krass and Aslani). Finally, the evidence 
of Dr March described developments in policy affecting the pharmacy profession and in the 
training of pharmacists over the last 30 years. We accept as accurate his description of those 
developments, but not necessarily some of the inferences he sought to draw from those 
developments.

[181] The evidence adduced by the APESMA referred to a large number of discrete changes 
which it will be necessary for us to deal with separately later, but the APESMA’s overarching 
case was that there had been a paradigm shift in the work of pharmacists since 1998 from the  
traditional role of simply dispensing medicines for the treatment of particular illnesses to a 
patient-centred approach in which the pharmacist operates as part of an integrated health care 
team treating the entirety of the patient’s condition through the provision of a wide range of 
primary and preventative health care services and through direct interaction with the patient. 
It is apparent that the case was advanced in that overarching way in order to justify the scale 
of the wage increases sought. We will deal with this overarching case first.

[182] We are not satisfied that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of the work 
of pharmacists since 1998, or in their skills or level of responsibility, in the way suggested by 
the APESMA. We consider that the evidence, considered as a whole, demonstrates the 
following propositions:








[2018] FWCFB 7621

71

(1) The main function of the pharmacist has always been, and remains, the 
dispensing of prescription medicines. However over time (both before and after 
1998) there has been a decline in the proportion of time spent on this work. 
There have been a number of reasons for this. The process of issuing 
prescriptions, and making PBS claims in respect of such prescriptions, has 
speeded up and been simplified due the transformation effected by information 
technology. That this has been the case is a matter of everyday observation, 
although it was confirmed by the evidence of the PGA’s witnesses Ms Willis, 
Mr Pricolo and Mr Loukas, and also to some extent by the APESMA’s 
witnesses Ms Malakozis, Ms Madden and Ms McCallum and in the second part 
of the Report of Professors Krass and Aslani. As the federal government has 
over some decades attempted to control the cost of PBS medicines, issuing 
prescriptions has become relatively less profitable than it was before and has 
forced pharmacies to seek revenue and profit from other areas of activity. 
Additionally, the compounding of prescription medicines has virtually ceased 
(except in some specialist compounding pharmacies), and in addition the 
preparation of extemporaneous medicines now rarely occurs. Again, this 
position was made clear in the evidence of the PGA’s witnesses, and was either 
supported or not contradicted by the APESMA’s witnesses.

(2) This relative decline in the work of dispensing prescriptions has allowed 
pharmacists to spend a greater proportion of their time in providing other 
services to and interacting with patients, and the regulatory framework in 
which pharmacies operate has encouraged and incentivised this process,
consistent with the philosophy articulated by the QUM policy. In the latter 
respect, the Community Pharmacy Agreements - particularly the Third, Fourth 
and Fifth CPAs - introduced a number of programs which funded the provision 
of a range of professional services to the community. All the witnesses to 
varying degrees gave evidence supporting this proposition.

(3) However, it does not follow that the nature of the work of community 
pharmacists or their skills or responsibilities have fundamentally changed since 
1998 because of the developments described above. Rather, this is a case 
where, by and large, pharmacists have as a consequence of these developments 
been required to perform certain work and exercise certain skills more 
intensely and more frequently than they did. 

(4) Interaction and dialogue with patients concerning medicines to be dispensed, 
including the proper use of medicines and their effects, and the use of “soft” 
personal and communication skills in doing so, was a feature of pharmaceutical 
practice in 1998 and remains so today. Ms Malakozis and Ms McCallum as 
well as Ms Willis, Mr Pricolo and Mr Loukas described interacting with 
patients and providing them with information about their prescriptions before 
1998, and this is consistent with everyday experience. The degree to which 
patient interaction occurs has always varied from pharmacy to pharmacy 
depending on business/retailing model that is used, but it certainly cannot be 
accepted that this was a new class of work or a new skill that was introduced at 
some time after 1998. We note Dr March’s evidence that university 
undergraduate courses for pharmacists have added new subjects to the 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

72

curriculum related to the use of such “soft” skills, but there was imprecision 
about when this occurred, and it is not clear to us that this was not part of the 
normal evolution of university courses rather than a radical change required by 
new developments in the profession. It may be accepted that greater 
accessibility to information about medications and patients’ medication 
histories through the use of information technology has added to the 
therapeutic value of patient interactions, but we do not consider that there has
been any intrinsic change to the nature of this work or the skills exercise.

(5) Diagnosis and advice as to the treatment of minor ailments such as colds and 
flu, minor aches and pains, allergies, skin irritations, cuts and abrasions, and 
referrals to medical practitioners if necessary, is not new and was a feature of 
pharmacy practice in 1998. We accept the evidence of Ms Willis, Mr Pricolo 
and Mr Loukas in this respect, which was not the subject of any substantial 
contradiction on the part of the APESMA’s pharmacist witnesses. The degree 
to which this occurs is likely to have increased as a result of the greater 
accessibility of pharmacists to the public and a concomitant growth in 
expectations of the availability of such advice on the part of pharmacy
customers, but there is no new work or skills involved.

(6) The introduction of federal-government funded programs for the provision of 
patient services through the Community Pharmacy Programs is not necessarily 
to be understood as signifying the introduction of new work or a requirement 
for pharmacists to learn new skills. We think the evidence supports the 
proposition that many of these programs provided funding to support the 
systematised provision of services that were already provided by pharmacists 
free of charge and on an ad-hoc basis. For example, we accept Ms Willis’ 
evidence that the MedsCheck and Diabetes MedsChecks programs, which were
introduced as part of the Fifth CPA and involve a systematised in-pharmacy 
review of a patient’s medicines, represent a formalisation of work which was 
performed informally before. The skills required to be exercised, including 
understanding how medications may interact with each other, communicating 
to patients about the proper use, effects and storage of medicines, and 
identifying and responding to problems that may have arisen in the use of 
medication, are not new and were exercised by pharmacists in 1998 and before. 
Likewise, we accept the evidence of Mr Pricolo and Mr Loukas that clinical 
interventions, which are the subject of a formal funding program introduced in 
the Fifth CPA and involve the identification of any medication-related problem 
in a patient and the making of a recommendation to the relevant medical 
practitioner about how to resolve it, are not new, with the change being that 
they are now recorded for funding purposes and their performance thereby 
encouraged. That they are not new is confirmed by the text of the Fifth CPA 
itself, which (as earlier set out) provides that the applicable program had the 
purpose of increasing the number of clinical interventions provided and 
documented. 

[183] In summary, we consider that although the mix of work being performed and skills 
being exercised has changed since 1998, and some skills for which pharmacists have always 
been trained are not utilised in a more intense and systematised fashion, there has not been the 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

73

fundamental change in the work of pharmacists since 1998 which would justify wage 
increases of the order claimed by the APESMA.

[184] It is next necessary to determine whether any of the work changes relied upon by the 
APESMA, considered individually, would justify any increase in the wage rates for 
pharmacists in the Pharmacy Award for work value reasons. We have already, in the context 
of our consideration of the APESMA’s overarching case, rejected the proposition that there 
has been any change in the work value of pharmacists because of the QUM, greater 
interaction and communication with patients, the diagnosis and treatment of minor ailments, 
the MedsCheck program, or clinical interventions. We have reached the same conclusion, 
with one qualification to which we will return concerning the level of responsibility and 
accountability of pharmacists, about the following matters relied upon by the APESMA:

 Dose administration aids: The Fifth CPA financially supported the provision of 
DAAs in order to maximise the safe and effective use of medicines, but this did not 
represent the introduction of a new form of work or require the exercise of any new 
skill. We accept the evidence of Mr Loukas and Mr Pricolo that DAAs have existed 
since at least 1998, although their form and the extent of their usage has changed.

 QCPP: This has not in itself required new work or new skills, but has only involved 
a standardised quality assurance methodology.

 Blood pressure and blood glucose tests: These are not new and were offered in at 
least some pharmacies in 1998 and before. Blood pressure tests are not even 
necessarily administered by pharmacists.

 Medical certificates: It is clear that this service, which is offered at some but not all 
pharmacies on a fee-for-service basis, is new, having commenced in about 2009. 
However the evidence does not establish that this requires the exercise of any new 
skill by pharmacists; in particular the evidence did not suggest that the pharmacist is 
required to actually diagnose the person requesting the certificate on the basis of 
any form of medical examination as a medical practitioner would.

 Weight management services and smoking cessation services: These services have 
expanded but are not new, and on the evidence largely involve an explanation of 
available products for treatment.

 Asthma and diabetes management: We accept the evidence of Ms Willis, Mr 
Pricolo and Mr Loukas that this work had been performed in 1998 and before, and 
that any change was confined to understanding and providing information 
concerning new and updated medications, equipment and treatment methods.

 Sleep apnoea services: The limited evidence on this topic suggests that only a 
minority of pharmacies provide this service, and although it involves the provision 
of information and assistance concerning treatment technology which had been 
developed since 1998, the underlying condition had always been dealt with in 
undergraduate pharmacy courses.

 Continuing professional development: It is fundamental that any professional must 
engage in continuing and self-driven education and development in order to stay 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

74

abreast of new knowledge, technology and other changes in the profession. It is a 
defining feature of a profession. Accordingly the introduction of CPD requirements 
merely formalised and systematised something that was (or should have been) 
already occurring.

 Staged supply of medicines: This program involves the management of patients 
who, because of mental illness, addictions or other problems have difficulty in 
managing their medications. The very limited evidence about this does not 
demonstrate that involves entirely new work (in the sense that pharmacist have 
always had to interact with and manage the medication needs of patients with these 
difficulties) or the exercise of new skills.

 Workload and patient profile: The evidence that the overall workload of 
pharmacists has risen did not rise above the anecdotal level. We find persuasive the 
evidence of Ms Willis that where the workload of individual pharmacists might be 
characterised as excessive, it was generally the result of business decisions made by 
some pharmacy owners to artificially limit or reduce the number of staff to deal 
with cost and competitive pressures rather than because of any inherent change in 
the nature of the work. The evidence of Professor Clarke was that there had been, 
over some decades, a doubling of the number of persons per pharmacy due to the 
location and ownership rules preventing new entrants into the industry. However it 
cannot be concluded from this that the workload of pharmacists has concomitantly 
increased; it is clear that there have been significant increases in the dispensing 
productivity of pharmacists due to information technology, and the number of 
pharmacists has grown even though the restrictive arrangements preserved by the 
PGA and the federal government in the CPAs have stopped the number of 
pharmacies from growing. The demographic of an ageing and progressively more 
obese population has undoubtedly led to more prescriptions being issued per person 
and an increased need to manage chronic disease and multiple medications for co-
morbidities, but again it is difficult to conclude from this that the workload of 
individual pharmacists has increased have regarded to the productivity 
improvements to which we have referred.  

 Increase in use of complementary medicines and vitamins: The evidence does not 
establish that this involves any new work, skills or training.

 Clozapine clinics: The limited evidence on this topic does not satisfy us that this 
constitutes an increase in work value for pharmacists generally. It appears to 
involve the information checking and recording functions which do not involve the 
exercise of any new skills, and the duties appear only to be undertaken by a 
minority of pharmacists.

 Four-year undergraduate degrees: The evidence demonstrates that the move from 
three to four-year undergraduate degrees commenced well before 1998, although it 
became universal after 1998. We will consider the significance of the requirement 
of a four-year degree to the wage rates for pharmacists in the Pharmacy Award in a 
somewhat different context later in this decision.

 Internship requirements: The evidence demonstrated that the requirements for the 
completion of a pharmacist’s internship, being a prerequisite for registration as a 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

75

pharmacist, have become more onerous and rigorous. However this is a matter 
external to the work of pharmacists and does not constitute a change to the 
qualifications necessary to become a pharmacist.

[185] We are satisfied that the APESMA has demonstrated that there is an increase in work 
value associated with the introduction of Home Medicine Reviews and Residential 
Medication Management Reviews that justified a discrete adjustment to award remuneration. 
We have reached that conclusion for the following reasons:

(1) The performance of these duties requires the higher qualification of Accredited 
Pharmacist, which may only be obtained after undertaking a training course 
and successfully completing a communication module, an examination and 
four case studies.

(2) The performance of HMRs and RMMRs occurs in the patient’s home or aged 
care residence - that is, a different work environment involving the exercise of 
distinct personal interaction skills – and must be conducted in coordination 
with the patient’s medical practitioner.

(3) There is an entirely new level of responsibility in terms of both medical 
outcomes and the claiming of CPA funding.

[186] However, we do not agree that an entirely new classification of Accredited 
Pharmacist, as proposed by the APESMA, is either necessary or warranted. Registered 
pharmacists at any classification level may become Accredited Pharmacists, and any 
increased remuneration should operate as an equal increment to whatever may be the 
pharmacist’s classification rate. Further, the holding of the qualification of Accredited 
Pharmacist does not in itself mean that the employer requires the performance of HMRs 
and/or RMMRs, and the evidence shows that many pharmacies do not engage in this work.
These considerations support the conclusion that the appropriate course is to establish an 
allowance for Accredited Pharmacists who are required by their employer to perform HMRs 
and/or RMMRs. We consider that the establishment of such an allowance would be consistent
with and necessary to achieve the modern awards objective in s 134(1), in that it is required in 
order for there to be a fair and relevant safety net for pharmacists performing HMRs and 
RMMRs. In reaching that conclusion we have taken into account all the matters specified in s 
134(1)(a)-(h); each of those matters we consider to be neutral considerations. We consider for 
the same reason that such an allowance is necessary to achieve the minimum wages objective 
in s 284(1), to the extent applicable; in that respect we consider the matters identified in s 
284(1)(a)-(e) to be neutral considerations.

[187] We propose to invite further submissions about the form of this allowance (such as 
whether it should be an annual or weekly allowance or an allowance payable each time a 
HMR or RMMR is performed) and its quantum.

[188] In addition, we are satisfied that, in respect of some of the matters raised in the 
APESMA’s case, there has been some increase in the work value of pharmacists since 1998, 
These matters are as follows:

 Inoculations: The work of actually administering an inoculation by injection is new 
work introduced in recent years involving the exercise of a discrete new skill, and 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

76

requires the completion of additional approved study, the maintenance of authority 
to immunise, and the holding of statements of proficiency in cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation and first aid. 

 Emergency contraception: The provision of emergency contraception, as Mr Yap 
explained in his evidence, requires not just the usual tasks of ensuring that the issue 
of the medication would be appropriate, safe and effective, but may also require 
analysis, advice, assistance and referral in cases where the patient is underage or 
may have been the victim of a sexual assault. We accept Mr Loukas’ evidence that 
this is new work and involves an increase in accountability and responsibility.

 Downscaling of medicines: The downscaling of significant numbers of medications 
from prescription-only to Schedule 3 pharmacy-only medicines has increased the 
work value of pharmacists because it requires the pharmacist, in addition to 
dispensing the drug, to take on the functions previously exercised by a medical 
practitioner of diagnosing the patient and determining that issuing the medication 
would be a safe and effective medical response.

 General increase in the level of responsibility and accountability: While, for the 
reasons earlier stated, we have not generally accepted that the work and skills 
associated with patient programs established and funded under the CPAs has led to 
an increase in work value, we consider that the requirement for pharmacists to 
document these activities for the purpose of receiving funding and measuring 
outcomes represents a new required level of accountability and responsibility on the 
part of the pharmacist. Both the APESMA witnesses and the PGA witnesses 
acknowledged that this documentation requirement had not previously been a 
responsibility of pharmacists in 1998 when the relevant services had been provided 
on an informal and ad hoc basis.

[189] We will invite the parties to make further submissions as to how the above findings 
should be reflected in an adjustment to remuneration, noting that the evidence demonstrates 
that not all pharmacists administer inoculations or dispense emergency contraception. It may 
be necessary for the consideration of this matter to occur in the context of the matters raised in 
the next part of our decision.

[190] Finally, it is necessary to deal with the alternative limb of the APESMA’s case, 
namely that the relativities between pharmacists and the C10 tradespersons rate in the Metal 
Industry Award established in Commissioner O’Shea’s 1996 decision should be re-established 
by reference to the current C10 rate in the current Manufacturing and Associated Industries 
and Occupations Award 2010 (Manufacturing Award) because that was the basis upon which 
the work value of pharmacists was fixed when the Community Pharmacy Award was made in 
1998. It is not in dispute that those relativities have become compressed as a result of flat 
dollar increases in Safety New Reviews and Annual Wage Reviews from the time the 
Community Pharmacy Award was made (and indeed from 1993) through to 2010. That 
means, for example, that the commencing classification of a Pharmacist, which was intended 
to have a relativity of 140% compared to the C10 rate, now has a relativity of only 123%.88

                                               

88 The current weekly wage rate for a Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Award is $1033.40. The current C10 classification 
weekly wage rate under the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award is 837.40. 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

77

[191] It may be accepted that where the work value of a classification has been assessed on 
the basis of a relativity relationship with the C10 classification in the Metal Industry Award, 
and that relationship has not been sustained so that the current wage rate for the classification 
no longer reflects its originally assessed work value, that would constitute a work value 
reason as defined in s 156(4). The question is whether it is a work value reason that would 
justify the variation to minimum wages in the Pharmacy Award sought by the APESMA. We 
consider that it is not. The compression of relativities was the intended effect of the award of 
flat dollar increases to awards, in that it was considered appropriate to adopt an approach to 
improve the relative position of lower-paid award-wage workers and to depress that of higher-
paid award-wage workers. This may be illustrated by the following passage in the 2009-10 
Annual Wage Review decision, the last in which a flat-dollar increase was awarded:

“[336] We consider there is a strong case for a percentage adjustment to all modern 
award minimum wages. While not all award-reliant employees are low paid, uniform 
dollar increases reduce the relevance of the safety net at the higher award levels and 
erode the real value of award wages at most levels. These are particularly important 
considerations at the commencement of the modern awards system. Nevertheless most 
of the major parties supported a dollar increase rather than a percentage one.

[337] With some hesitation we have decided on a dollar increase. There are two 
reasons. The first is that to the extent there is a choice between a percentage increase 
benefiting the higher levels and a dollar amount benefiting the lower levels we think 
that the current circumstances favour a greater benefit for the lowest paid. We are 
required in particular to take the needs of the low paid into account. In light of the fact 
that award-reliant employees have not had an increase in wages since 2008, it is 
desirable that we increase award rates by the largest amount consistent with the 
statutory criteria. Secondly, we have very little data concerning the impact of a 
percentage increase on costs and employment. We have insufficient information to be 
confident that a percentage increase would not have disproportionate effects on 
employment at the higher award levels…”

[192] It may also be noted that this position was one urged by the union movement over a 
long period of time. Because flat-dollar increases were applied across all awards, the 
compression of relativities has occurred across the entire award wages system. We do not 
think that there is any proper basis to attempt to unwind now, in one award only in response 
to a claim by a single union, a common approach to the adjustment of wages which was taken 
for deliberate policy reasons with the support of the union movement as a whole. It is 
obvious, in addition, that if the approach now urged by the APESMA was taken in relation to 
the Pharmacy Award, there would be no logical reason why this would not sought to be 
flowed on to every other modern award, with ramifications that need not be spelled out.

[193] Accordingly the alternative basis for the APESMA’s claim is rejected. However we 
give some further consideration to the issue of pharmacists’ relativities with the C10 rate, and 
other rates, in the Manufacturing Award in the next part of this decision.

Relativity between Pharmacist Rates and Manufacturing Award Rates

[194] The following table sets out the relative position concerning rates of pay, original 
relativity with C10 and qualifications as between relevant classification in the Manufacturing 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

78

Award and the Pharmacy Award (noting that completion of a four-year undergraduate degree 
and a one-year internship is necessary to qualify for the base Pharmacist grade in the 
Pharmacy Award):

Manufacturing
Award 
classification

Minimum
qualification

Original 
relativity 
to C10

Current 
Wage 
Rate

Pharmacy Award 
classification

Original 
relativity 
to C10

Current 
Wage 
Rate

C1 Degree 180/210% - Pharmacist manager 190%89 1290.90
C2(b) Advanced

Diploma or 
equivalent +
additional 
training

160% 1132.40 Pharmacist in charge 160%90 1158.40

Experienced 
pharmacist

1131.80

C2(a) Advanced
Diploma or 
equivalent +
additional 
training

150% 1085.00

C3 Advanced 
Diploma

145% 1058.60

Pharmacist 140%91 1033.40
C4 80% towards an 

Advanced 
Diploma

135% 1005.90

C5 Diploma or 
equivalent

130% 979.60

C6 C10 (Trade 
certificate III) + 
80% towards 
Diploma OR 
50% towards 
Advanced 
Diploma

125% 960.00

C7 Certificate IV or 
60% towards 
Diploma

115% 913.70 Pharmacy Intern 
– 2nd half of training

913.50

C8 C10 (Trade 
certificate III) + 
40% towards 
Diploma

110% 889.90

Pharmacy Intern 
– 1st half of training 

883.40

[195] The above relativities do not align for equivalent qualifications, reflecting the 
difficulty arising from the original use of professional scientists as a reference point. Nor do 
they consistently relate to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which ranks 

                                               

89 190% is the original relativity for the Pharmacist Manager Grade 1 classification, which became the Pharmacist Manager 
classification in the Pharmacy Award.

90 160% is the original relativity for Pharmacist in charge Grade 1 classification, which became the Pharmacist in charge 

classification in the Pharmacy Award.
91 140% is the original relativity for a Pharmacist in their first year of experience. 








[2018] FWCFB 7621

79

educational qualifications above the completion of the Senior Secondary Certificate of 
Education in ten levels as follows:

Level 1 – Certificate I
Level 2 – Certificate II

Level 3 – Certificate III
Level 4 – Certificate IV
Level 5 – Diploma
Level 6 – Advanced Diploma, Associate Degree

Level 7 – Bachelor Degree
Level 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma
Level 9 – Masters Degree

Level 10 – Doctoral Degree

[196] It can be seen, for example, that the rate of pay for a Pharmacy Intern, First half of 
training, who must possess a bachelor degree and is thus at Level 7 of the AQF, is lower than 
that of classification C8 in the Manufacturing Award, who is at Level 3 in the AQF. Similarly 
the base grade Pharmacist, who is at Level 7 in the AQF, is paid less than the C3, who is at 
Level 6 in the AQF.

[197] This outcome appears to be inconsistent with the principles stated and the approach 
taken concerning the proper fixation of award minimum rates in the ACT Child Care 
Decision, to which we have earlier made reference. However we note that the ACT Child 
Care Decision was made under a different statutory regime and pursuant to wage-fixing 
principles which no longer exist.

[198] This matter may potentially constitute a work value consideration relevant to the 4 
yearly review of the Pharmacy Award. In the conduct of the review, the Commission is 
required to discharge its functions under s 156(2) and is not confined to matters raised by 
interested parties. We will as a first step invite further submissions from interested parties 
concerning this matter. We will then consider what course, if any, should be taken. One 
possibility is that this aspect of the review may need to be referred back to the President of the 
Commission for consideration as to the procedural course to be taken pursuant to s 582, since 
the matter raised may have implications for other awards of the Commission, including but 
not limited to the Professional Employees Award 2010.

Next step

[199] Interested parties may file further written submissions pursuant to paragraphs [187], 
[189] and [198] within 28 days of the date of this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT


OF THE FAIR WORK MISSION THE




 

https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-10
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-9
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-8
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-7
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-6
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-5
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-4
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-3
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-2
https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-qualifications#div-1


[2018] FWCFB 7621

80

Appearances:
M. Irving QC and F. Knowles of Counsel for the Association of Professional Engineers, 
Scientists and Managers, Australia.
M. Seck of Counsel for the Pharmacy Guild of Australia

Hearing details:
2018.
Sydney:
7 – 11 May.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

PR703187

Cases cited by this decision: