ATO phone contractor lodges ‘same job, same pay’ application

“The CPSU has stepped up our campaign, making an application to the Fair Work Commission using the ‘same job same pay’ laws,” CPSU deputy national president, Beth Vincent-Pietsch, said.

“If successful, this application would deliver fairness to workers and improved services for taxpayers.”

Previously, Vincent-Pietsch told Accountants Daily that ATO contract workers employed at for-profit firms were paid less than internal ATO staff and received less training. She noted that this had led to ‘double handling’ and poorer service outcomes.

“We know that [contractors are] getting paid less than their counterparts doing the same work in the ATO. And we know that they're not provided with the same level of training and support that ATO employees are given.”

“Service delivery workers within the ATO [are] really frustrated by the number of times that this leads to the need for double handling … because people have been given incorrect advice or not been able to get the advice or the work that they need.”

In a recent review of the ATO’s tax agent phone line, Tax Ombudsman Ruth Owen found that agents were overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the ATO’s phone service.

“I have been overwhelmed by the strong feedback from tax agents in this review. Agents are reporting an increasingly poor experience with the ATO’s agent phone line over the last two years, citing inconsistent advice and a lack of suitably skilled staff. This is contributing to a general feeling of not being valued by the ATO,” she said.

The review found that external contractors answered over 85 per cent of agents’ calls to the ATO, and only 44 per cent of contractors had a tenure exceeding 12 months. The Ombudsman estimated that approximately 50 per cent of agents’ calls were handled by less experienced officers.

“We recognise that contractors provide the ATO with much needed flexibility, but it may come at a cost to quality,” the Ombudsman’s review read.

“The vast majority of agent calls are taken by external contractors, around half of whom have less than 12 months of experience and who may not have had the depth of experience and knowledge to handle agents’ calls.”

To be successful in their FWC application, the CPSU said they would have to prove that Probe supplied labour to the ATO, that the ATO was not a small business, and that the contract workers would be covered by an enterprise agreement if they had been employed directly by the ATO to perform the kind of work they currently undertook.

The union said it would argue that the contract workers performed “core work” for the ATO, that their work overlapped with that of the ATO employees, and that the ATO set the day-to-day tasks, workflow priorities and KPIs of the contract workers.

The CPSU noted that the application could fail if the work performed by the employee was deemed to be the supply of a service to the ATO, not a supply of labour, or if the FWC found it wouldn’t be ‘fair and reasonable’ to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order, given the circumstances.

“At any given time, there are up to 2,000 workers performing ATO work through three private for-profit contract call centres – Probe, Concentrix, and Serco,” Vincent-Pietsch said.

“These private contract arrangements cost taxpayers more than directly employed public servants, while the workers themselves receive lesser pay and conditions than ATO employees.”