Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Assessment of the remuneration gap between men and women. The Committee recalls that the Government previously indicated that it was making efforts to obtain data on average wages disaggregated by sex and occupation so as to better assess the implementation of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there is no difference in remuneration between men and women for the “same job or post” and that therefore no data have been collected on remuneration received respectively by men and women. The Government acknowledges, however, that differences in pay may exist between men and women due to the concentration of women in lower-paid jobs or the fact that certain posts tend to be filled more by men than by women. The Committee recalls that occupational sex segregation is one of the main underlying factors of earnings differences between men and women as it often results in the undervaluing of posts and jobs predominantly or exclusively performed by women in comparison with those of men who are performing different work that may nevertheless be of equal value. The collection and analysis of data on the distribution of men and women in the various sectors of the economy and occupations, their levels of responsibility and corresponding levels of earnings, is therefore essential to determine the nature and extent of the remuneration gap between men and women, and assessing its causes, including occupational segregation. The Committee asks the Government to step up its efforts to collect and analyse data on the distribution of men and women in the various sectors of the economy and occupations, their levels of responsibility and corresponding levels of earnings, and to provide such data, as soon as they become available. Please also provide information on any measures taken to address the concentration of women in lower paid jobs and their under-representation in higher paid sectors or occupations, and the results achieved.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Application of the principle to all elements of remuneration. The Committee notes that a survey undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and Human Resources in April 2009 on equal pay for equal work in 103 sample enterprises indicates that the most prevalent model of payment was a “fixed monthly post-based wage plus a floating wage” such as “post-based wage plus performance bonus or other allowances or subsidies”. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the principle of the Convention is being applied not only to the basic wage but also to any additional allowances, bonuses or subsidies paid directly or indirectly by the employer to the worker, and that no sex-based discrimination exists in the payment of such additional emoluments. Please continue to provide information on any surveys being undertaken or envisaged, regarding the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, including the findings of such surveys.

Article 2. Determination of wages. With regard to the method of calculation of indicative wages to be set by enterprises for the different occupations, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that labour market guidance wage levels are formulated in accordance with the “Notification on the Establishment of the Labor Market Guidance Wage Level System” of 1999, and obtained by observing the actual wages, and not through government instructions. They are classified according to job categories, without taking into account gender considerations; for the same post or job, the same guidance wage level is used for male and female workers. The Committee considers that the described method of indicative wage setting may not take fully into account the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and it is unclear how it is being ensured that the recommended wage levels for occupations that are predominantly carried out by women are not being undervalued as a result of gender bias. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take appropriate measures, in cooperation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations, to ensure that the national system for indicative wage setting fully takes into account the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Articles 2(c) and 4. Collective bargaining and cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the promotion of collective bargaining is one of the main means the Government uses to assist enterprises in the setting of wages, and will be the basis for further reforms regarding methods for wage determination. It notes in this regard the launching of the Rainbow Project, which is a tripartite effort, to promote the implementation of collective wage bargaining, as well as the other efforts undertaken by the Government to consult with workers’ and employers’ organizations when formulating wage standards and policies. The Committee asks the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or envisaged, in the context of the Rainbow Project or otherwise, to raise awareness among workers’ and employers’ representatives negotiating wage agreements of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and of ways of implementing it in the context of wage agreements, and the results achieved by such measures.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee recalls the Government’s previous indication that most enterprises use the “job-post wage system”, under which wages are being determined on the basis of perceived skills required, level of responsibility, labour intensity and working conditions specific to each post. The Committee notes that the Government’s report merely indicates that enterprises are free to choose the “job-post wage system” without giving further information on the extent to which it is being used. Noting further the Government’s explanations regarding “objective job evaluation based on work performance as part of the enterprise’s internal management”, the Committee remains unclear as to whether “the job-post wage system” referred to by the Government is an actual objective job evaluation method, with the objective to measure the relative value of jobs with varying content on the basis of the tasks to be performed, regardless of the worker’s actual performance. Recalling that objective job evaluation is an important means of determining remuneration in accordance with the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, the Committee asks the Government to confirm whether the “job-post wage system” is an objective job evaluation method, and to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to promote the development and use of such methods, including in the context of the “job-post wage system”, and the results achieved.

Enforcement. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that steps have been taken to improve the labour inspection capacity in general, but that further efforts are needed. The Government also indicates that statistical data on the number of cases involving violations of the principle of equal pay for equal work between men and women are not yet available. The Committee encourages the Government in its efforts to improve its labour inspection capacity, and requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to strengthen the capacity of the labour inspectorate to detect and address violations relating to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and the results achieved. Please provide information on any measures taken to collect and analyse information regarding cases involving violations of the principle of equal pay.