Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A government representative noted that Austria had always presented detailed reports on the application of the Convention. He said that his Government was prepared to continue the dialogue on the application of this Convention. He referred to the broad definition of remuneration in Austrian legislation, where it covers all benefits received by a worker, including voluntary social benefits such as additional occupational pensions. The new Equality of Treatment Committee had had 20 plenary meetings since 1979 and six Working Committee meetings: of 14 submissions, 3 had been dealt with by the Committee, 9 had been withdrawn because of elimination of the discrimination, one case had been resolved when the matter was cleared up between the employers and workers, and one case was still under consideration. At the level of the Länder only one case had been dealt with.

A copy of the collective agreement referred to by the Committee of Experts under point 2 of its observation, concerning agricultural workers, would be communicated to the Office shortly. A report was soon to be published on the elimination of differentials provisions for men and women in collective agreements and would also be forwarded to the Office. The Equality of Treatment Committee would deal in detail with the deletion of persisting discriminatory provisions as in collective agreements.

On the third point of the Committee of Experts' observation-the delicate question of equal remuneration for work of equal value-it was true that there were branches of activity in Austria employing mainly women, where wages were lower than in other branches; however, there was no indication that this was because the work was done by women. In the fixing of wages in collective agreements, several factors other than job evaluations-such as the economic situation, the competitive situation, productivity and labour market conditions in the branch concerned-were of importance. As regards the introduction of an objective job appraisal in collective bargaining, this requirement was very difficult to meet. In a system where the State does not fix wage scales, but where they were rather fixed in collective bargaining, it was debatable whether it was at all possible to lay down scientific criteria; and it was doubtful whether such a system of objective job appraisal would lead to more appropriate results than would the collective agreements themselves. ILO studies had shown how difficult objective job appraisal was. At present no acknowledged method for fixing objective criteria which could serve as a basis for an abstract and general rule exists. But this fact would not exclude continuation of endeavours in the Austrian Equality of Treatment Committee to find appropriate ways to bring into force the principle of equality of treatment in the sense of international standards with full consideration given to autonomous collective bargaining.

On the Committee of Experts' fourth point, there was no way to void collective agreements fixing different rates of remuneration on the basis of sex, as this would violate the freedom of collective bargaining. But the provisions of equality applied directly to both individual and collective agreements and had to be taken into account when drawing up a contract of employment or a collective agreement. Every female worker had the right to apply to the Equality of Treatment Committee or to a labour court in case of discrimination. When a decision was taken, any such provision contained in a collective agreement or individual contract of employment which had been ruled discriminatory would be void with respect to the female worker concerned. The employer concerned would certainly no longer apply such a provision of the collective agreement to the other female workers and would exert pressure upon his organisation to amend such a provision. A copy of a Supreme Court decision on this matter would be provided to the Office.

The Employers' members noted the information provided by the Government on the first two points of the Committee of Experts' observation requesting such information. The basic problem of equal remuneration for work of equal value was common to many countries; although traditional views were often still held, there had been movement away from discrimination. Earnings statistics were of doubtful utility in assessing the situation in this respect, since they did not take account of differences in training, functions, working hours and overtime between men and women: apparent differences between men's and women's remuneration could be attributed to these factors rather than to violations of the principle of the Convention. Employers accepted the principle, but it was difficult to implement. In 1986, the present Committee had discussed the Committee of Experts' general survey on this Convention and on that occasion the employers had also said there was no scientific way of evaluating jobs. The situation was no doubt improving, but it would always be a matter of judgment and a social problem which had not been solved anywhere. Where it was collective agreements which decided the question, there was a need for a change of attitudes among both workers and employers in order to be more aware of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. Thus this was not just a legal question: legal decisions could resolve some disputes and misunderstandings, but there was also a need for practical contributions in concrete cases.

The Workers' members referred to Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (establishing the EEC) concerning equal remuneration and the problems which had arisen for many years on this question; in theory, equal remuneration might be guaranteed, but in practice it was a very difficult thing to implement. First of all, the term "remuneration" covered all elements of payment including wage scales, paid holidays and other aspects of earnings from employment. Secondly, in order for the principle to be applied in practice, there must be supervision and provision for action in cases of violation. Thirdly, although in some cases there was no discrimination between men and women in job classifications, in practice women were always at the lower rungs of the ladder; in those cases, there should be objective appraisal by experts above and beyond those who negotiate the job classifications. Fourthly, it seemed that in practice some jobs were still reserved either for men or for women. Fifthly, access to the courts should always be available in the last resort as a remedy.

The Government representative again expressed his Government's willingness to continue reporting on developments and efforts made to bring about greater understanding of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. It hoped the Government would continue to keep under review the important aspects of implementation of the Convention referred to in the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the elimination of discriminatory provisions in collective agreements and job evaluations. The Committee requested the Government to supply full information on the measures taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Application of the Convention’s principle beyond the enterprise level. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that remuneration was primarily being fixed by sectoral collective agreements, which, under the equal treatment legislation, are required to respect the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value when evaluating jobs. However, the Government is unaware of any collective agreement that explicitly addresses the issues of equal remuneration for men and women, and during the reporting period there was no case in which the Equal Treatment Commission found that the system for establishing remuneration contained in a collective agreement was contrary to the requirements of the Equal Treatment Act. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any efforts have been made to examine existing collective agreements from a gender perspective in order to identify instances of undervaluation of jobs and occupations predominantly carried out by women, as compared to those predominantly carried out by men. Please also continue to indicate whether there are any cases involving legal challenges to collective agreements in terms of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

With regard to remuneration beyond the level provided for in the collective agreement, the Government considers that reference to the enterprise for purposes of comparison is appropriate, given that comparisons with employees of other enterprises appear to be difficult due to the structural differences between enterprises and given that enterprises have no obligation to disclose their wage practices. However, the Government indicates that where no comparable worker is currently employed in an enterprise, a hypothetical comparison is possible with the remuneration received by an employee of the opposite sex in the past. While noting the Government’s explanations, the Committee maintains that the Convention does not limit the application of the principle of equal remuneration to the same enterprise. The Committee considers that the mere fact that there is no real or hypothetical comparator available within the enterprise should not relieve the employer from the obligation to determine levels of remuneration free from discrimination based on sex. The Committee thus considers that the legislation should not exclude the possibility of bringing equal pay claims where no comparator is available within the enterprise, particularly in cases where enterprises predominantly employ women, and wage levels are manifestly below those usually practised by enterprises in a comparable situation. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how men and women are protected from discrimination in respect of remuneration beyond the level provided for in collective agreements and in the absence of collective agreements, if no real or hypothetical comparator is available within the enterprise.

Application of the Convention in the public service. The Government indicates that differentials in the earnings of men and women in the federal public service can be attributed to differences in working hours, qualifications and the numbers of men and women in the different levels of the wage scales. The average levels of remuneration within the various occupational groups is not expected to rise due to the continued increase in the admission of women to the public service at the career entrance level, despite the increasing number of women in management positions. With regard to the provincial civil services, the Committee notes that the Vienna Equality of Treatment Act provides that in case of breach of the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value, a public employee is entitled to payment of the pay difference plus interest and compensation (section 11). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 11 of the Vienna Equal Treatment Act, and to indicate whether similar provisions exist in other provincial equal treatment legislation for the public service. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to promote and ensure equal opportunities of women as regards career advancement in the federal civil service.

Articles 2(2) and 4. Minimum wage and cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. Recalling that establishing minimum wages is one of the means of promoting equal remuneration between men and women envisaged by the Convention, the Committee welcomes that on 2 July 2007 the Austrian Trade Union Federation and the Austrian Chamber of the Economy concluded a framework agreement providing for the fixing of a minimum wage of €1,000 in the various sectoral agreements. According to the Government’s report, the agreement has been implemented with respect to almost all sectoral agreements by 2009. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the minimum wage on the earning levels of men and women, and the closing of the remuneration gap between men and women.

Practical measures to promote equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee notes that a project under the Federal Ministry for Women’s Affairs has established a set of 20 indicators for monitoring earnings differentials between men and women. A report entitled “Gender-specific income disparities: Monitoring indicators” and a follow-up study thereto were published in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Training for equal pay experts continued. Further, the Committee notes that tripartite consultations are ongoing on a National Action Plan for Equality which is expected to include measures to promote equal remuneration. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the various practical measures taken to eliminate the remuneration gap between men and women, including information on any measures taken under the National Action Plan for Equality, particularly with regard to eliminating pay discrimination against women upon entry in employment. The Committee also asks the Government to provide updated information on the measures taken to promote the design and use of objective job evaluation methods.

Enforcement of the legislation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in the period 2007–08, Senate I of the Equal Treatment Commission received 17 submissions regarding unequal remuneration. Out of these submissions, eight were still pending and six were withdrawn. In two cases, the Commission found discrimination; in one other case it found that there was no discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the cases regarding equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value addressed by the Equal Treatment Commission and the courts, including indications as to the Government’s analysis of these cases.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as the observations made with regard to the application of the Convention by the Federal Chamber of Labour, which were received with the Government’s report.

Assessment of the gender remuneration gap. The Committee notes that the gross annual income of women employed full time for 2007 was some 22 per cent lower than men’s. In the same year women’s gross hourly wage was 25.5 per cent lower than men’s, the second largest pay gap in the European Union. The gender remuneration gap in respect of gross annual income of employed workers (including part-time workers) was 40.1 per cent, practically unchanged since 1997. Similarly, wide gender remuneration gaps exist in respect of average hourly wages received by full-time and part-time workers. The Committee expresses concern that this very wide gender remuneration gap persists, despite the measures that have been taken so far to address it.

The Committee notes that according to the Government, the gender remuneration gap is primarily due to unequal remuneration offered to women upon entry into employment, unequal opportunities for promotion, and childcare responsibilities which have a limiting effect on women’s access to better paid positions. In addition, the Government regards the lack of information and of transparency in relation to remuneration levels as contributing to the persisting gender remuneration gap. In the Government’s view, the publication of workplace wage differentials would assist in closing this gap. According to the Federal Chamber of Labour, the income differentials between men and women cannot be explained by differences in working hours, levels of education, sectors or occupations, but rather by the existence of structural discrimination against women who receive lower pay for work of equal value. The Chamber also points to the need to improve wage transparency within and between companies.

The Committee notes that tripartite consultations are currently taking place on amendments to the Equal Treatment Act regarding wage transparency. Central aspects of the discussions are the possibility of requiring regular anonymous wage reports by enterprises of a certain size and the inclusion of pay information in vacancy announcements. The Committee firmly hopes that the ongoing consultations will be successfully concluded in the near future, and it asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to strengthen the existing legislation to provide a basis for reinforced action to eliminate the gender remuneration gap, including through the publication of enterprise-based wage information.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Assessment of the gender remuneration gap. The Committee notes from the statistical information provided by the Government that the gender remuneration gap continues to persist despite the various measures taken by the Government and the social partners. As regards average gross hourly earnings, the gap amounted to 18 per cent in 2004 and 2005, while it remained stable at around 40 per cent as regards median annual earnings (full-time and part-time employees) for a number of years. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide comparable statistical information on the earnings differentials between men and women. It also asks the Government to indicate any action taken to follow up on the proposal made by the Federal Chamber of Labour to establish a legal basis to allow for the compilation of monthly wage statistics disaggregated by sex.

2. Measures to promote equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the results of the development partnership KLARA! relating to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, as well as the publication of an updated version of the guide “Equal remuneration for equal work and work of equal value”. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to follow up on these initiatives, in cooperation with social partners and other relevant stakeholders, in order to ensure that equal pay considerations become a permanent and systematic feature in the determination of remuneration in collective agreements and at the level of individual enterprises. Please indicate whether any evaluations have been undertaken on whether the recent initiatives have led to an increased use of objective job evaluation methods at the enterprise level or in the preparation of collective agreements and whether such use has contributed to reducing the gender pay gap.

3. The Committee further notes that among the gender equality measures under the Government’s programme for 2007–10 that are expected to contribute to the closing of the gender pay gap are, inter alia, the introduction of a minimum wage of 1,000 euros through collective bargaining and of additional pay for part-time workers doing overtime in order to compensate adequately for their high flexibility. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in implementing these measures.

4. Application of the Convention’s principle beyond the enterprise level. The Committee recalls its general observation of 2006 in which it pointed out that the application of the Convention’s principle is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise. It allows for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different places and enterprises, or between different employers. In this regard, the Committee notes that the European Committee of Social Rights concluded in June 2007 that where wage comparisons are only possible between employees of the same employer, this is not in conformity with article 4(3) of the European Social Charter. Recalling the importance of allowing for a broader scope of comparison particularly where women are concentrated in certain occupations and areas of activities, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to address this matter, e.g. by allowing for the use of a hypothetical comparator in an equal pay case where a male employee performing work of equal value is not available within the enterprise. The Committee also asks the Government to provide examples of workplace or collective agreements that specifically address equal pay issues and to indicate whether any efforts are being made in the context of collective bargaining to compare the remuneration for female-dominated and male-dominated occupations across different collective agreements.

5. Enforcement of the legislation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the rulings of the Supreme Court in two cases concerning remuneration (OGH 9 ObA 90/04g of 1 December 2004 and OGH 8 ObA 139/04f of 13 March 2005). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on court decisions on equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, as well as to provide information on relevant decisions of the Equal Treatment Commission. It asks the Government to state whether there have been any cases in which it has been found that a system for the determination of remuneration at the enterprise level or in a collective agreement was not in line with section 11 of the Equal Treatment Act (No. 66/2006).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Article 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislative developments. The Committee notes that the new Equal Treatment Act (Federal Gazette No. 66/2004), as was the case in the previous legislation, requires the employer to abstain from direct or indirect discrimination based on sex in respect of remuneration and voluntarily granted social benefits. It also notes that section 11 of the Act maintains previous provisions concerning the principle of equal remuneration for the same work or work of equal value, providing that enterprise-level job grading systems, workplace agreements and collective agreements must respect this principle and cannot rely on criteria for the evaluation of men’s and women’s work that lead to discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on judicial decisions concerning equal remuneration of men and women in the private and the public sectors, as well as information on the activities promoting and ensuring equal remuneration carried out by the Equal Treatment Commission, the Equal Treatment Ombudsperson, and the machinery set up under the Federal Equal Opportunities Commission.

2. Measures to promote equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee notes that a development partnership ("KLARA!") dealing with equal remuneration for work of equal value has been established under the EQUAL initiative of the European Community. The objectives of this initiative include, inter alia, public awareness raising and capacity building on equal pay issues. Further, an assessment of the contribution of current equality policy measures to reduce the gender pay gap is being carried out. The Committee would appreciate receiving further information on the implementation and results of this initiative.

3. Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the research project "Discrimination-free job evaluation and organization" was finalized in 2004 and that the project resulted in the publication entitled "Equal remuneration for equal work and work of equal value". The publication contains practical guidelines for discrimination-free job evaluation for workers and employers. The Committee welcomes this initiative and asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote the use of non-discriminatory job evaluation methods in practice, including through cooperation with the social partners.

4. Article 4. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that without the active participation of employers and workers, no significant progress can be made in the implementation of the Convention.  The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide information on the steps taken by it to seek the cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in giving effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee would also appreciate receiving information on the measures taken by all social partners to promote equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, including in the context of collective bargaining. Please provide examples of workplace or collective agreements that specifically address equal pay issues.

5. Part IV of the report form. General appreciation of the application of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2003, the average gross hourly earnings of women were 17 per cent lower than men’s. The gender pay differential concerning yearly average gross earnings decreased from 41.3 per cent in 2000 to 39.7 per cent in 2003. Please continue to provide comparable statistical information on the income differentials between men and women.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports of August 2002 and September 2003 and the extensive documentation and statistical information attached.

1. The Committee notes from the implementation report on the National Plan of Action for Employment of January 2002 and the research on which the report’s findings regarding equal opportunities are based that some progress has been made in increasing women’s participation in employment due, amongst other things, to an increased offer of childcare by third persons and increasingly flexible working time and part-time work. However, the Committee is concerned that at the same time the overall gender income gap has widened. While women in full-time employment earned 29.4 per cent less than men in 1995, they earned 30.1 per cent less in 2000. Taking into account both full-time and part-time employment, women earned 31.9 per cent less than men. Women remained under-represented in higher income jobs and over-represented in low-income jobs. In addition, they were dominant in those occupational groups with increasing income disparities. On the other hand, women holding university degrees earn at no point in their careers less than 90 per cent of their male counterparts. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the remuneration levels of men and women and on the measures taken to counter the negative trends regarding income disparities between men and women.

2. The Committee notes the conclusions from the abovementioned implementation report and the underlying research that measures to reconcile work and family remain a major aspect of improving remuneration levels for women, including through collective agreements and workplace agreements. It also notes that workers’ and employers’ organizations, commenting on the findings of the research reports, have underlined the need to take such measures. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken to promote working practices that better accommodate the need to reconcile work and family life and any collaboration with the social partners in this regard.

3. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the research project on discrimination-free job evaluation and organization was completed in 2002, and that the project has contributed to a renewed discussion in Austria on objective job evaluation and equal remuneration for work of equal value. In this context the Committee notes from the abovementioned implementation report and related research that promoting objective job evaluation is expected to have a positive impact on the remuneration levels of women. In all sectors there are enterprises in which the remuneration schemes result in remuneration disparities, yet this is not the case in others. The Committee therefore asks the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to promote the objective evaluation of jobs in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention and to keep the Committee informed in this regard.

4. The Committee notes the information contained in the 2000 report on the implementation of the Equal Treatment Act regarding equal pay cases addressed by the national equality machinery, and asks the Government to continue to provide such information in its future report. Please also continue to provide information on court cases respecting the principle of equal remuneration.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the attached documentation.

1. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the regional offices for equal treatment issues in Vorarlberg, Tyrol and Salzburg have dealt with matters relating to equal remuneration. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken by these offices and the results achieved in implementing the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value.

2. The Committee notes the study carried out by the Department for Basic Women’s Issues in the Federal Ministry for Economy and Labour, entitled "The incomes of men and women in gainful employment" (Einkommen von Frauen und Männern in unselbständiger Beschäftigung). It notes the study’s finding that the remuneration gap between men and women has not decreased over the last two decades. The study examined different factors that may be at the origin of this difference, such as unequal opportunities at the career entrance level and differences in the hours worked and periods out of work for family reasons. The Committee notes the statement that there is a continuing trend for women to choose jobs with lower income than men. It also notes with regard to hourly wage rates that full-time women workers earn 27 schillings less on average per hour than men. Furthermore, between the period 1993 to 1997, women workers who took their maternity leave entitlements earned 9 per cent less than they earned in 1992, while women workers who did not take any maternity leave earned 20 per cent more in 1997 than they did in 1993. The Committee notes from the conclusions of the study that there are two central aspects that must be tackled if this situation is to be changed: firstly, the manner and extent of childcare provision by third persons; and secondly, the flexibility of employment arrangements. The Committee has emphasized frequently that a comprehensive approach in the area of equality of opportunity and treatment is of particular importance for the application of Convention No. 100. Most of the obstacles to equal remuneration, to which the Government refers, come within the scope of Convention No. 111 (ratified by Austria) and some others concern also Convention No. 156 (not ratified). Accordingly, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider how it might improve the application of this Convention through the implementation of measures which, though related to Convention No. 100, fall within the scope of other ILO instruments. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information indicting the measures being taken to reduce the wage differential between men and women.

3. The Committee notes that the project "Discrimination-free job evaluation and organization" was commissioned in 1999 to develop and implement analytical job evaluation in individual enterprises as a basis for a fair system of remuneration. The Committee notes the importance of such an initiative and would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the finalized study with its next report and information on its implementation.

4. The Committee notes the statistical information provided with the report. It once again wishes to draw the Government’s attention to its 1998 general observation, in which it emphasizes the importance of gathering and analysing statistics on salary levels, disaggregated by sex, in order to permit the Committee to evaluate adequately the nature, extent and causes of the salary differentials between men and women. It hopes the Government will be able to supply this information with its next report.

5. The Committee notes the judgement of the High Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) of 20 May 1998 in which it states that the employer is responsible for paying equal remuneration to men and women workers for work of equal value, which is in accordance with the principle set out in the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on court cases respecting the principle of equal remuneration.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report, as well as in the Government's report on the application of Convention No. 111.

1. The Committee notes with interest the enactment of the Federal Act of 27 February 1998, amending the Equality of Treatment Act of 1979, which added a paragraph 2(a) to section 3(a) of the Act. The new paragraph 2(a) provides that the Federal Chancellor may decree that regional offices be set up for lawyers for equal treatment issues designated by the Federal Chancellor pursuant to section 3(a). This measure was intended to promote and facilitate the application of the Equality of Treatment Act at the regional level. The Committee notes that by decree of the Federal Chancellor (BGB1.II, No. 356/98), a regional office of the lawyer for equal treatment issues was established for the provinces of Vorarlberg, Tyrol and Salzburg. It requests the Committee to supply information on the measures taken by these bureaus to reduce salary disparities between men and women, as well as information on the results achieved.

2. The Committee notes with interest that, in its decision of 16 April 1998, the National Council instructed the Federal Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs to conduct a study, in conjunction with the social partners, on salary trends and "non sex-specific" criteria, with the aim of eliminating salary differentials between men and women. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of this study once it is completed.

3. The Committee notes the Government's statement that, in accordance with the 1979 Equality of Treatment Act, wage rates are set by collective bargaining and that section 2(2) of that Act prohibits the establishment of criteria that could constitute indirect discrimination. Where a collective bargaining agreement contravenes this provision, it will be corrected by judicial decision, or through a recommendation issued by the Equality of Treatment Commission. Such a decision or recommendation would render the challenged collective bargaining provision null and void. Noting the collective bargaining autonomy that exists in this area, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it encourages the social partners to promote the application of the Convention through collective bargaining, for example, through seminars, awareness-raising programmes, or the dissemination of documents on the methods of eliminating sexist stereotypes in wage setting, etc.

4. The Committee notes that the report supplied by the Government on the application of Convention No. 111 is accompanied by numerous annexes that contain statistical data on the percentage of women in the public service. These reveal a continued increase in the participation of women in the public administration, including in high-level positions. It also notes with interest the activity reports of the Equality of Treatment Commission. These documents will be examined in the framework of Convention No. 111, after their translation into one of the working languages of the ILO. The Committee nevertheless wishes to draw the Government's attention to its 1998 observation, in which it stresses the importance of gathering and analysing statistics on salary levels, disaggregated by sex, in order to permit the Committee adequately to evaluate the nature, extent and causes of the salary differentials between men and women. It hopes that the Government will be able to supply this information in order to permit it adequately to evaluate the progress achieved in applying the principle of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

1. The Committee notes the information provided concerning the wage disparity between men and women. In this regard, it notes that, in terms of average income, men earn approximately 42 per cent more than that of women and that, according to the Government's report, about one-third of that difference is ascribed to the higher proportion of women in part-time work. The Committee requests the Government to furnish, in its future reports, information on any trends discerned in the wage disparity. In this regard, it notes from the report of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN document No. E/1990/6/Add.5 of 19 October 1993, paragraph 27) that, as concerns discrimination against women, the Government stated, inter alia, that there was a tendency to attach a relatively low value to jobs performed by women and that the question would always arise as to what criteria should be used to determine objectively what constituted equal or equivalent work. In the light of the 1994 decision of the Supreme Court, referred to in the observation on this Convention, the Committee asks the Government whether any measures are being taken by, for example, the Equality of Treatment Committee or the social partners, to examine whether classification criteria take adequate account of factors more likely to be present in the work performed by women.

2. The Committee notes the Government's explanation concerning the means of redress open to workers who consider their rights have been infringed under the Equality of Treatment Act. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing any available information on the work of the Equality of Treatment Committee, as might be contained, for example, in the Committee's reports or promotional material.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

1. In previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, given the principle of autonomy of collective bargaining in the country, neither the public authorities nor the legislative bodies intervened in negotiations but that the legality of provisions in collective agreements could be challenged by the parties in individual litigation. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that, in a resolution of 14 September 1994, the Supreme Court examined, for the first time, the question of indirect discrimination against women and the resulting legal consequences. The matter concerned a collective agreement which contained provision for two categories of temporary workers whereby the determining criterion for classification in the higher category was "physical capability". The Supreme Court established that this criterion was excessively to the advantage of men. As there was no classification criterion based on capacities more typical of women workers (such as manual dexterity), the Court concluded that this lack of balance in the assessment criteria constituted indirect discrimination against physically less capable women and was thus an infringement of section 2(2) of the Equality of Treatment Act, 1979, as amended. The relevant wage category provision of the agreement was consequently ruled to be partially invalid. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Act.

2. The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government on other matters.

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

1. With reference to its previous direct request noting gaps in both the private and public sectors between male and female remuneration, the Committee notes that the Government's most recent report contains statistics up to 1991 confirming that these wage disparities continue. It therefore again requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to discern the reasons for the relatively high earnings gap between men and women, and to redress any causes that give rise to discrimination based on the sex of the worker.

2. Noting that the Government reports only one case where the Equal Treatment Committee used section 6a of the Equality of Treatment Act (discretion to ask an employer to make a report where infringements of the Act or non-compliance with a court ruling concerning the Act are suspected), the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide such particulars in its future reports so that it is in a position to verify that the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value is being applied not only in law, but in practice.

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction the information supplied by the Government in its reports to the effect that the new collective agreement for the confectionery industry, which came into force on 5 March 1993, eliminated the wage scales "a" and "b" which had been seen to be establishing discriminatory wage rates, so that separate wage rates for men and for women no longer exist; as well as the 1992 amendment to section 2(2) of the Equality of Treatment Act (BGB1. No. 833/1992) which specifically incorporates the concept of "work of equal value" into that Act and requires respect for it in the fixing of wages in enterprise regulations (including collective agreements).

1. The Committee notes that the Federal Chamber of Labour comments that the wage structure in the country is marked by a clear discrimination against female workers and that it remains to be seen whether the amendment to the Equality of Treatment Act (in above-mentioned Act No. 833/1992) will change this by its improved provisions. Noting the Government's explanation of these 1992 amendments, the Committee asks to be kept informed of any cases arising under the new wording of section 2(2) and their treatment by the Equal Treatment Committee, as well as on the practical effect of the new legislative text.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement - made also in previous reports - that, given the principle of autonomy of collective bargaining in the country, neither the public authorities nor the legislative bodies intervene in negotiations, but that the legality of provisions in collective agreements can be challenged by the parties in individual litigation. Noting also that, according to the Government, there is no information on any recent cases of a labour court finding a clause in a collective agreement to be discriminatory and thus rendering that clause null and void for the individual worker concerned, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed, in future reports, of any cases where the principle of equal remuneration in a collective agreement is the subject of litigation, for example, before the Vienna Labour and Social Welfare Tribunal (as had been mentioned in previous Government reports).

3. With regard to statutory penalties for violations of the principle, in particular under section 6 of the Equality of Treatment Act (the Equal Treatment Committee to investigate, upon receiving complaints or on its own initiative, alleged infringements of the principle of equality of treatment; in case of non-compliance with a finding that an infringement exists, the Committee may apply to the labour court for confirmation of its finding), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, a declaratory judgement is currently being sought from the Industrial Tribunal in accordance with the procedure of section 6 with regard to whether a worker can claim payment of the difference in remuneration before that Tribunal. Should the Tribunal decide that it can order payment of the difference, the worker will lodge a claim for this payment against the employer, the claim having the force of the judgement. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that the Act does not provide for other penalties, such as fines, as well as its explanation that a worker can in any case take legal proceedings concerning discriminatory payment without having first to use the section 6 procedure. The Committee asks the Government to inform it of any decisions of the Industrial Tribunal in such a case, and of any other case brought before the courts seeking redress of discriminatory wage conditions using the procedures of the Act.

4. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Referring to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, including the attached statistical data, court decisions and documentation.

1. The Committee notes from the statistical data supplied from 1991 studies that, in the private sector, in 1989 the average income of men was higher, in many cases considerably higher, than that of women, even where women have the same educational qualification as men. These statistics also indicate that the disparity between the average income of men and women increased from 1987 to 1989 and that women earn less than men because more women are engaged in part-time employment or in lower-paid jobs (e.g. in textiles, 92 per cent of workers are women, whereas in the petrol industry 94 per cent of workers are men).

As to the public service (Angestellten), the statistics indicate that in 1989 the average gross income of male public servants was significantly higher than that of female public servants. In the civil service (Beamten), however, the average gross income in 1989 of females was a fraction more than that of males.

The Committee requests the Government to continue supplying up-to-date statistics on the average incomes of men and women in both the private and public sectors. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures that have been taken or contemplated to discern the reasons for the earnings gap between men and women and to redress the causes that are a result of discrimination apparently based on sex.

2. The Committee notes that on 1 February 1991 the Equal Treatment Committee was transferred from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to the Federal Chancellery (the Federal Minister of Women's Affairs). The Committee also notes that between 1979 and 1990 the Equal Treatment Committee had brought six cases against employers out of 18 complaints alleging wage discrimination and that the remaining cases were settled. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the outcome of claims concerning discrimination in the fixing of remuneration, including copies of decisions rendered by the Vienna Labour and Social Welfare Tribunal.

3. The Committee also notes that from the passage of the Act in 1979 until the end of 1990 no employer has been asked for a report pursuant to section 6 of the Equality of Treatment Act (non-compliance with the recommendations of the Equal Treatment Committee in specific cases against employers). It again asks the Government to indicate whether the Equal Treatment Committee has exercised its power to request an employer suspected of non-observance of the principle of equal treatment to submit a report in this respect.

4. The Committee notes the summary of the 1987 case in which the Vienna Labour and Social Welfare Tribunal, affirmed by the Higher Land Court of Vienna, ruled that an employee may contest his or her dismissal pursuant to section 105 of the Labour Constitutional Act (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz), even if the grounds for appealing the dismissal are not obviously warranted. It asks the Government to inform it in future reports of any other proceedings concerning wage discrimination based on sex brought under section 105 of the Labour Constitutional Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report and the attached documentation. It also notes the observations provided by the Trade Union of Food Industry, Agricultural and Forestry Workers and the Austrian Congress of Chambers of Labour, communicated with the report.

1. The Committee notes with interest that in response to the initiatives of the Equal Treatment Committee, the remaining discriminatory clauses contained in a few collective agreements in the food and allied industries have been removed, by aligning the rights of women with those of men as regards travel allowances, family allowances and widows' pensions. The Committee also notes that the separate wage rates for men and women are no longer contained in most of the collective agreements in this sector and that newly negotiated wage categories do not specify the worker's sex. It notes, however, that the Trade Union of Food Industry, Agricultural and Forestry Workers has indicated that the only collective agreement containing different categories of remuneration for work of equal value is that for the confectionery industry, which employs a significant number of women workers (70 per cent). This union calls for long-term strategy in wage negotiations to increase women's earnings proportionately more than those of men in order to achieve equal remuneration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in eliminating the remaining discriminatory provisions in collective agreements, in particular if there are any still establishing separate wage rates for men and women in the food and allied industries, including confectionery, and on further action taken by the Equal Treatment Committee in that respect.

2. The Committee notes with interest the amendment to the Equality of Treatment Act by Federal Act of 27 June 1990, which amends section 2(2) so as to stipulate that the equality of treatment requirement must be observed in the fixing of remuneration under collective bargaining agreements so that such agreements should not provide for criteria for the evaluation of women's and men's work in such a way as to lead to discrimination. The Committee also notes with interest the amendment on 21 February 1991 of the Lower Austria Agricultural Labour Order, 1973, which provides that collective agreements may not establish discriminatory criteria for the evaluation of women's and men's work (section 240(2)). It requests the Government to indicate what measures have been taken or contemplated during the renegotiation of collective agreements so as to implement the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in accordance with the provisions of the amended Equality of Treatment Act and the Agricultural Labour Order. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest that the Equal Treatment Committee has decided to establish a working party to determine whether job classification descriptions and evaluation criteria for individual wage groups contained in collective agreements are such that, if these agreements are correctly applied, they preclude discrimination based on sex. It asks the Government to supply information on the findings of this working party with regard to promoting the use of objective appraisal of jobs on the basis of work to be performed in the various economic sectors.

3. The Committee notes the Government's indication that there is no legal procedure which empowers a court or administrative authority to declare null and void clauses of collective agreements which are found to be contrary to the principle of equal remuneration under section 2 of the Equality of Treatment Act, and that an aggrieved person must bring an individual complaint and such a clause will be declared invalid in regard to that person only. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any recent cases in which the Equal Treatment Committee or a labour tribunal found a clause in a collective agreement to be discriminatory with regard to remuneration, rendering the discriminatory clause null and void in respect of the individual worker concerned. In addition, given that the 1990 amendment to section 2(2) (referred to above) requires collective bargaining agreements not to include criteria for the evaluation of men's and women's work in such a way as to lead to discrimination, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the effect of new section 2(2) on discriminatory clauses in such agreements.

4. The Committee notes the comment of the Austrian Congress of Chambers of Labour that there should be statutory penalties against employers and entitlements to compensation for aggrieved persons when wage discrimination based on sex has occurred. Noting the enforcement procedure laid down in section 6 of the Equality of Treatment Act, the Committee asks the Government to indicate how labour court rulings can be effectively enforced against non-complying employers in cases of proven wage discrimination on the basis of sex, and to describe what other sanctions, such as fines, are available when the Equality of Treatment Act has been breached in cases of discrimination in the fixing of remuneration.

5. The Committee is addressing a request on further matters directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. The Committee refers to its observation where it notes the information contained in the comments of the Austrian Federation of Chambers of Labour that statistically the average income of women in Austria is generally well below that of men. The Committee requests the Government to include with its next report statistics on the average incomes of men and women in the various economic sectors.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the system for the classification of jobs in the public service, and to supply information on the situation of public service employees with regard to supplementary allowances. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied on those points by the Government. It asks the Government to include with its next report examples of one or more wage scales corresponding to the various employment categories.

3. The Committee notes with interest the documents supplied by the Government on the activities of the Equal Treatment Committee and on the decision by the Vienna Labour and Social Welfare Tribunal of 26 September 1989. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply similar information with its next report. Please indicate in particular whether the Equal Treatment Committee has by now exercised its power to request an employer suspected of non-observance of the principle of equal treatment to submit a report in this respect.

4. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the provisions protecting workers who initiate legal action to enforce their right to equal remuneration, against dismissal or other forms of reprisal.

The Committee notes with interest the amendment to section 105 of the Labour Constitutional Act (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz) by Act of 3 July 1986, providing that workers in enterprises with five or more employees can contest a dismissal, on the basis of claims arising from the worker's employment contract, and that the worker concerned has only to provide prima facie grounds for his appeal against the dismissal, and not to submit complete proof. Please indicate in the next report how this provision is implemented in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's reports, and the comments received from the Austrian Federation of Chambers of Labour.

1. The Committee notes from the Government's reports that the Equal Treatment Committee has, inter alia, examined the issue of discriminatory provisions in collective agreements, and that it endeavours to bring its influence to bear on the collective bargaining parties to remove the remaining discriminatory provisions from collective agreements. The Committee notes that only a few collective agreements still contain discriminatory provisions, as concerns social allowances. It notes that separate wage rates persist only in a few collective agreements in the food and allied industry, where an adjustment between men's and women's wages has not yet been fully completed, but where the bargaining partners have agreed to complete the staged process of abolishing the different wage rates at an early date. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the progress achieved in eliminating discriminatory provisions in collective agreements, in particular as concerns those provisions establishing separate wage rates for men and women in the food and allied industries and on the action taken by the Equal Treatment Committee in that respect.

2. In this connection, the Committee recalls that it had raised the possibility, in its previous comments, that the provisions of individual employment contracts or collective agreements which run counter to the principle of equal remuneration might be deemed null and void; it referred to paragraph 175 of its 1986 General Survey on Equal Remuneration in which it is stated that this is the practice in certain countries. The Committee notes that the Committee of Independent Experts on the European Social Charter noted, in its 1988 report, that section 879 of the Austrian Civil Code provides that a contract contrary to prohibitions contained in law or to public morality is null and void, and concluded that clauses of collective agreements or individual employment contracts contrary to the principle of equal remuneration which appears at section 2 of the Equality of Treatment Act of 23 February 1979 would be void. That Committee asked for recent jurisprudence on the matter. The present Committee asks for further information in this connection.

3. In its previous comments the Committee noted that wages relating to activities carried out exclusively or mainly by women were normally at a lower level than for jobs carried out by men and drew the Government's attention to Article 3 of the Convention concerning the objective appraisal of jobs. The Committee notes from the Government's reports that wage fixing in Austria is carried out by means of collective bargaining and is thus independent of state influence, but that the collective bargaining parties are obliged to observe the principle of equal remuneration embodied in the Equality of Treatment Act. It further notes that under the Austrian collective bargaining system agreements are concluded at a sectoral level, and that therefore, an objective evaluation system which would be valid for all sectors and allow comparison of totally dissimilar activities seems impossible to establish; but that a scientific job evaluation system can be drawn up only by the collective bargaining parties for the sector within their own jurisdiction.

The Committee notes the comments by the Austrian Federation of Chambers of Labour to the effect that statistically, the average income of women in Austria is generally well below that of men; that the Equality of Treatment Act of 1979 has been responsible for the removal of glaring sex-determined inequalities in collective agreements; but that the Equality of Treatment Committee has so far not done enough to settle the basic question of what constitutes work of equal value. The Austrian Federation of Chambers of Labour states that with reference to Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 100, the parties to the collective agreement are called upon to make greater use of their opportunity to establish methods of job appraisal; the Equality of Treatment Committee has been given the task of encouraging such activities by the parties to the collective agreement and of providing expert assistance.

The Committee further notes from the Government's report that the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs has submitted for approval the draft of a further amendment to the Equality of Treatment Act, with the primary objective of extending the scope of the equality of treatment principle and improving the machinery for implementation, which would include a regulation on equality of treatment in wage fixing stating clearly that in systems of job classification for the purpose of establishing wages and salaries no differentiated criteria should be applied as regards men's and women's work.

As concerns the Government's remarks concerning the difficulty of establishing a job evaluation system which would be valid across the entire economy, the Committee readily recognises this problem. It points out that job evaluation schemes which affect a sector of the economy, or even a single employer, are fully consistent with Article 3 of the Convention. It refers the Government to paragraphs 138 to 152 of its 1986 General Survey in this regard.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the use of systems of objective appraisal of jobs on the basis of the work to be performed in the various economic sectors.