Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Syrian Arab Republic (Ratification: 1957)

Other comments on C100

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is committed to uphold the Constitution and international law. The Committee recalls that this Convention is one of the fundamental human rights Conventions.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislative developments. The Committee recalls that section 75(b) of the Labour Law 2010 defines “work of equal value” as “work that requires equal scientific qualifications and professional skills, as attested by a work experience certificate”, which may unduly restrict the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value provided for in section 75(a), as it does not appear to allow a comparison of jobs requiring different qualifications and skills, which are nonetheless of equal value. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of section 75(b) is to clarify the meaning of section 75(a) in law and in practice and does not negate the possibility of comparing jobs requiring different qualifications and skills, which are nonetheless of equal value. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 75 of the new Labour Law, including any administrative or judicial decisions, confirming the possibility to compare jobs performed by men and women of an entirely different nature, requiring different qualifications and skills, to determine whether they are of equal value under section 75(a).

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information regarding concrete measures taken to determine the nature, extent and causes of inequalities in remuneration that exist in practice. The Government reiterates in this regard that no complaint on discrimination in remuneration has been registered in the private sector and that in the public sector, there are no cases of discrimination in remuneration between men and women; and no judicial findings have been handed down in this regard. The Committee recalls that where no cases or complaints, or very few, are being lodged, this may indicate a lack of an appropriate legal framework, lack of awareness of rights, lack of confidence in or absence of practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. The lack of complaints or cases on discrimination in remuneration could also indicate that the system of recording violations is insufficiently developed (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 870). The Committee once again urges the Government to undertake measures to assess and determine the nature, extent and causes of inequalities in remuneration existing in practice between men and women for work of equal value in the public and private sectors, and to identify specific measures to address such inequalities. The Committee further requests the Government to raise awareness, among the competent authorities and among workers and employers and their organizations, of the relevant legislation, and to enhance the capacity of the competent authorities, including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials, to identify and address cases of unequal pay, and to examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions, in practice, allow claims to be brought successfully.

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