Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Greece (Ratification: 1975)

Other comments on C100

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee reiterates the content of its direct request adopted in 2019, which is reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) received on 31 August 2017 and 30 October 2019.

Impact of the structural reform measures on the application of the Convention. Since 2010, the Committee has been examining the austerity measures adopted in the framework of the financial support mechanism, and requesting the Government to monitor the impact of such measures on the application of the equal pay legislative provisions, as well as on the levels of remuneration of men and women, both in the public and private sectors, with a view to determining the most appropriate measures to avoid widening, and to further close, the gender pay gap. While noting that the Government does not provide information on any impact assessment undertaken to that end, the Committee notes that the GSEE reiterates its previous concerns regarding the absence of an impact assessment of the austerity measures on the implementation of the Convention, as well as a widening of the gender pay gap and obstacles in women’s career development. The Committee takes note of the adoption of the National Action Plan for Gender Equality (NAPGE) for 2016–20 and more particularly of the Government’s acknowledgement that the prolonged austerity policies have disproportionately affected women’s employment. Noting that the third economic adjustment programme ended on 20 August 2018, the Committee however notes that, in April 2019, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and in Practice considered that Greece was lagging behind other countries in the European Union on women’s rights despite legal and policy frameworks being in place, because of poor implementation, the persistence of discrimination and the lingering impacts of the crisis and austerity measures (OHCHR, Press statement of 12 April 2019). While regretting that the Government did not undertake any impact assessment that could have been of assistance to better assess and mitigate the impact of the austerity measures adopted between 2012 and 2018 on the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures, in collaboration with employers’ and workers’ organizations, the Ombudsman and the enforcement authorities, to assess and address all the issues identified by the Committee on the application of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide full information on the concrete measures implemented to that end, in the framework of the National Action Plan for Gender Equality or otherwise, as well as on any obstacles identified and results achieved.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that article 22(1)(b) of the Constitution and section 4(1) of Act 3896/2010 concerning the application of the principle of equal opportunity and treatment between men and women in terms of employment, provide that men and women are entitled to equal remuneration for work of equal value, but do not define the term “work of equal value” nor set criteria for assessing the respective value of different jobs. The Government previously indicated that such definition is left for judgments of national courts. The Committee takes note of the summary of decision No. 604/2017 of the Supreme Court, forwarded by the Government, where judges considered that “within the meaning of [article 22(1)(b) of the Constitution], any discrimination in the remuneration of those working for the same employer when providing the same work or work of equal value is prohibited”. It further notes that the European Commission recently highlighted that the notion of “work of equal value” is unclear to litigants and judges, so that in most cases the comparison concerns the same work, considering that the equal pay principle applies to workers employed by the same employer, who belong to the same category, have the same formal qualifications and provide the same services under the same conditions (European Commission, Country report on gender equality, 2018, Greece, page 27 and Report on the enforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, July 2017, page 44). The Committee recalls that the concept of “work of equal value”, which lies at the heart of the fundamental right of equal remuneration for men and women for equal value, goes beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, but which is nevertheless of equal value. While factors such as complexity, responsibility, difficulty and working conditions are clearly relevant in determining the value of jobs, when examining two jobs, the value does not have to be the same or even comparable with respect to each of the factors considered. Determining whether two different jobs are of equal value consists of determining the overall value of the jobs when all the factors are taken into account. It also recalls that the application of the principle of the Convention should not be limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment, enterprise or sector but allows for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different places or enterprises, or between different employers or sectors. Where women are heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment level may be insufficient (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 676–679 and 697–698). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which article 22(1)(b) of the Constitution and section 4(1) of Act 3896/2010 are applied or interpreted in practice by labour inspectors and labour courts, in particular the term “work of equal value”, and provide extracts of any relevant administrative or judicial decisions. The Committee encourages the Government to undertake awareness-raising activities and trainings to promote better understanding and improved application of the principle of the Convention by employers, workers and their respective organizations, as well as judges and law enforcement officers, by ensuring that, when determining whether two jobs are of equal value, the overall value of the jobs is considered and the definition allows for jobs of an entirely different nature to be compared free from gender bias and going beyond the same employer. It asks the Government to provide information on any activities undertaken in this regard, as well as their impact on reducing the gender pay gap.

Article 2(2)(b). Minimum wages. The Committee notes with interest that, for the first time since 2012, the minimum wage was increased by 11 per cent as of February 2019 by Ministerial Decision No. 4241/127/2019, and the lower wage category for younger employees was abolished. It notes however that, pursuant to Law No. 4172/2013, changes were introduced in the process of setting the statutory minimum wage, which was traditionally determined through bilateral social partner agreements, and are now determined at national level by the Government, after consultation of social partners and other specialized institutions. As regards collective agreements, the Government adds that no violation of the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for equal value has been found. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that in defining minimum wages through collective agreements, rates are fixed on objective criteria, free from gender bias, and that female-dominated occupations are not undervalued in comparison with those predominantly undertaken by men. It asks the Government to provide a copy of collective agreements fixing minimum wages. The Committee further asks the Government to provide statistical information on the percentage of women and men who are paid the statutory minimum wage.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that public administration employees are not classified by occupation but by category, branch and speciality and that, as provided for by Law No. 4354/2015 on Management of non-performing loans, salary adjustments and other urgent matters for the implementation of the budgetary targets and structural reforms agreement of 16 December 2015, the salary scale is determined on the sole basis of the years of service completed and formal qualifications. The Government adds that enterprises are not requested to use an occupational classification system to determine wages, as mentioned in section 4(2) of Act 3896/2010, and a mandatory application of this provision to enterprises, the majority of which are small or medium-sized enterprises, would cause problems to their functioning or be pointless. The Committee recalls that the concept of “equal value” laid down in the Convention requires some method of measuring and comparing the relative value of different jobs. There needs to be an examination of the respective tasks involved, undertaken on the basis of entirely objective and non-discriminatory criteria in order to avoid the assessment being tainted by gender bias. While the Convention does not prescribe any specific method for such an examination, Article 3 presupposes the use of appropriate techniques for objective job evaluation, comparing factors such as skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions (see General Survey, 2012, paragraphs 695–696). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the method and criteria used to establish the classification of jobs of public administration employees and corresponding salary scales without gender bias, and to ensure that jobs mainly performed by women are not undervalued in comparison with jobs mainly performed by men but evaluated objectively on the basis of the work that they involve. It further asks the Government to provide information on any job evaluation exercise undertaken in the public sector, indicating the criteria used and the measures taken to ensure that men and women receive equal remuneration for work of equal value, as well as on any measures taken to promote the use of objective job evaluation methods and criteria that are free from gender bias, such as qualifications and skills, effort, responsibilities and conditions of work, in the private sector.

Enforcement. The Committee notes, from the information provided by the Government, that a training programme, several seminars as well as a two-day workshop were held in 2014 and 2015 for almost 200 labour inspectors on issues relating to equal opportunities and treatment for men and women in employment. It further notes that, in 2018, an awareness-raising campaign was undertaken by the General Secretariat for Family Policy and Gender Equality (GSFPGE) on the Equal Pay Day. Noting that as a result of section 12 of Law No. 4443/2016, the Ombudsman is now responsible for monitoring and promoting equal treatment not only in the public sector but also in the private sector, the Committee notes, from the 2018 special report of the Ombudsman on equal treatment, that the number of complaints on gender-based discrimination especially at the workplace, increased, representing 57 per cent of the total number of the complaints received by the Ombudsman. While observing that no information is available on the number of complaints specifically dealing with pay discrimination issues, the Committee takes note of a mediation made by the Ombudsman, and forwarded by the Government, concerning a case of gender pay discrimination where it was decided that a woman who had exactly the same duties as her male colleague was also entitled to receive the benefit corresponding to heavy and arduous job. The Government adds that in 2018, the labour inspectorate neither received nor detected any case or complaint on inequality of remuneration. The Committee wishes to recall that no society is free from discrimination and that the absence of cases or complaints could indicate a lack of an appropriate legal framework, lack of confidence in, or absence of, practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 871). In light of the apparent restrictive interpretation of the principle of the Convention made at national level, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the content of training and awareness-raising activities undertaken in relation to the term of “work of equal value” and the scope of application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. It asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number of cases or complaints concerning inequality of remuneration dealt with by the labour inspectors, the Ombudsman or the courts, as well as the sanctions imposed and remedies granted.