Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Repetition

Legislation. The Committee recalls that section 9 of the Prevention of Discrimination Act No. 26 of 1997 imposes the obligation on every employer to pay equal remuneration to men and women performing work of equal value, while section 2(3) of Equal Rights Act No. 19 of 1990 provides for “equal remuneration for the same work or work of the same nature”, which is a narrower concept than that required by the Convention. Further, the Committee recalls that section 28 of the 1997 Act stipulates that the Act shall not derogate from the provisions of the Equal Rights Act of 1990 but that the Government previously stated that the 1997 Act takes precedence over the 1990 Act. In light of the fact that section 2(3) of the 1990 Act falls short of the requirements of the Convention, the Committee remains concerned about the inconsistency between the above provisions concerning equal remuneration. Noting that no progress has been made concerning this matter for a number of years, the Committee asks the Government once again to amend the legislation in question with a view to ensuring that it is in accordance with the Convention and to avoid any uncertainties as to the interpretation of the provisions concerned, for instance, through expressly providing that the 1997 Act, in case of conflict, takes precedence over the 1990 Act. The Committee asks the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Application in practice. The Committee recalls its previous comments asking the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote and supervise the application of the equal remuneration provisions of the Prevention of Discrimination Act. The Committee also recalls the communication received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)), of 30 October 2003 which was forwarded to the Government on 13 January 2004 and again on 1 June 2006, and to which the Government has not yet replied. The ICFTU raises concerns regarding the promotion and effective enforcement of equal pay legislation. In this context, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there were no cases of male and female workers receiving different pay for the same work and that it was a long established fact that men and women received equal remuneration both in the public and private sectors. The Committee draws to the Government’s attention the fact that the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value does not merely require equal pay for the same or equal work but also equal pay for different work that is nevertheless of equal value, as established on the basis of an objective evaluation of the content of the work performed. The absence of differential wage rates for men and women, while necessary in order to apply the Convention, is not sufficient to ensure its full application. Concerned that the Government’s report indicates misunderstandings as to the scope and meaning of the Convention’s principle, the Committee considers that training concerning the principle of equal remuneration for labour inspectors and judges, as well as workers’ and employers’ representatives is essential to effectively ensure the application of the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate in its next report any measures envisaged or taken to ensure the application of the equal pay legislation and the Convention through training and awareness raising and to indicate any steps taken to seek the cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in this regard. Further, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions relating to the equal pay provisions of the Equal Rights Act No. 19 of 1990 and the Prevention of Discrimination Act of 1997.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.