Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report. In observations made since 1984, the Committee has referred to differentials in the wages paid to men and women in the sugar industry. It has recalled that the Sugar Workers (Minimum Wage) Order, 1982, which set minimum hourly wages for 1983, fixed in factories a rate of $3.23 for "General Workers, male", and a rate of $2.68 for "General Workers, female". This Order was replaced by a collective agreement fixing minimum rates of pay for 1984-85, which increased the wage rates but maintaining the corresponding differential rates for men and women set by the 1982 Order, although explicit reference to the sex of the worker had been removed. Thus the agreement fixed, in factories, a minimum hourly wage of $3.63 for "General Workers 'A' Class" and a wage of $3.02 for "General Workers 'C' Class", without any description of their jobs. The Committee had also noted that the 1982 Order fixed, for 1983, minimum hourly rates for four distinct categories of workers employed in plantations and estates: "Men, 'A' Class", "Men, 'B' Class", "Women, 'A' Class" and "Women, 'B' Class". These differences were faithfully reflected in the increased rates set for 1984 and 1985 by the above-mentioned agreement which distinguished four categories of sugar workers (without mention of sex) over 18 years of age by reference not to the work actually performed when employed on time work but, in the case of the three higher-paid categories, by reference to tasks they are required to perform when employed on piece-rates. The Committee had further noted that, for the years between 1984 and 1991, the wage rates continued to distinguish between "General Worker 'A' Class", "General Worker 'C' Class", "Artisans 'A' Class" and "Artisans 'B' Class". In addition, rates continued to be set for four categories of sugar workers over 18 years of age, without explicit descriptions of the corresponding jobs. The Committee had requested the Government to provide full information on the numbers of men and women employed in the various wage categories and to furnish any job descriptions adopted for those wage categories which did not indicate the jobs actually performed. It had also requested the Government to supply information on the measures take, either alone or in cooperation with the social partners, to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value to men and women in the sugar industry and on the methods used to evaluate and classify jobs in the industry. In its latest report, the Government states that it is not the practice to use gender as a basis for determining rates of remuneration in the country; and that jobs are analysed and rates of pay are determined on the basis of such criteria as the time spent on the job, the skills and qualifications required and job evaluation with the guidance of the ILO Standard Occupational Classification and the Barbados Standard Occupational Classification. The Government adds that the difference in pay between men and women in the sugar industry is based only on nomenclature and that, at the request of the Government, the parties to the 1983 collective agreement changed the relevant titles and reflected this change by stating in the agreement that "where men and women perform identical duties, they will receive equal pay". The Government also states that the question of vague job descriptions for general workers is expected to be addressed shortly when new management takes over the sugar industry. The Committee takes due note of these indications. However, as the Committee has stated previously, the sex-differentiated job categories and wage rates established in the 1982 Order have evidently been maintained in the collective agreements concluded since that time, despite the removal of the references to sex in the classification of posts. Information which would suggest otherwise has not been made available. The repeated requests of the Committee have not elicited information either on the respective numbers of men and women occupying the relevant posts or on any measures taken to evaluate and re-classify those jobs, using non-discriminatory criteria. Moreover, the principle of equal pay proclaimed in the 1984-85 agreement for the sugar industry, merely covers equal remuneration for persons performing "equal work" (which is apparently tantamount to having identical duties), but falls short of the principle of the Convention, under which men and women shall be paid equal remuneration for work of equal value, implying a comparative evaluation of work of a different nature. The Committee has also noted that no information has been provided on the other matters raised by the Committee in its previous observations, i.e. the progress of the Employment and Related Provisions Bill, which was to embody the principle of equal remuneration in terms similar to those of the Convention and measures taken to apply the Convention in practice, and in particular to monitor its implementation. In these circumstances, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will take measures, in cooperation with the social partners, to ensure that the principle of the Convention is applied in full. In this regard, it urges the Government to consider the possibility of embodying the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in legislation applicable to all workers. It also hopes that strenuous efforts will be made to respond to the Committee's concerns in regard to the application of the principle in the sugar industry. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, in its next report, full and detailed information on any job descriptions adopted for those wage categories which do not indicate the work actually performed and on the methods used to evaluate and classify posts in this industry. Having taken account of the evident difficulties being faced in the application of the Convention, the Committee recalls its 1990 general observation, where it invited governments to consider the possibility of requesting advice and technical cooperation from the International Labour Office.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.