Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2023, Publicación: 112ª reunión CIT (2024)

Convenio sobre igualdad de remuneración, 1951 (núm. 100) - Países Bajos (Ratificación : 1971)

Otros comentarios sobre C100

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Previous comment

The Committee notes the joint observations of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) received on 30 August 2023, and then communicated by the Government.

Articles 1(b) and 2(2)(a) of the Convention. Work of equal value. Scope of comparison. Legislation. In relation to the equal treatment legislation that only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company, the Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that the National Labour Authority (NLA, formerly the Labour Inspectorate SZW) does not deal with individual unequal pay cases and no data is available for the judiciary as such cases are not registered under a specific category. In that regard, the Committee observes that, in March 2019, a Bill on Equal Pay for Women and Men was submitted to the House of Representatives to give the NLA the task of monitoring the application of the law and imposing fines in case of non-compliance. The Bill was debated in Parliament for the first time in February 2021 but has not been adopted so far. The Committee further notes, from the Government’s report, that the number of decisions issued by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) regarding unequal pay between men and women remains low (from 3 in 2020 to 4 in 2022) but observes that discrimination on the ground of sex was proved in 73 per cent of the cases examined by the NIHR between 2020 and 2022. According to the NIHR, in such cases the salary of the applicant was compared to the salary of a “reference person” of the other sex with the same position and responsibilities within the organization, or the NIHR looked at whether there were large average differences between what men and women earn within that organization. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the measures envisaged to extend the scope of comparison of work of equal value beyond the same enterprise. Recalling that the concept of “work of equal value” permits a broad scope of comparison, including, but going beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, which is nevertheless of equal value, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise, 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. Ensuring a broad scope of comparison is essential for the application of the principle of the Convention given the continued prevalence of occupational gender segregation. Indeed, where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment level will be insufficient (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 697–699). As regards the persistence of occupational gender segregation, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). In light of the persistent occupational gender segregation and wide gender pay gap, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the legislation in order to ensure a broad scope of comparison between jobs to determine whether they are of equal value, in particular by ensuring that the application of the principle is not limited to the same establishment or enterprise. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any legislative development in that regard, in particular in the context of the Bill on Equal Pay for Women and Men; (ii) any activities undertaken to raise awareness of the scope of comparison of the principle of the Convention, in particular among workers, employers and their organizations, as well as law enforcement authorities; and (iii) any unequal pay cases dealt with by the NLA, the NIHR, the courts or any other competent authorities allowing for a comparison to be made between the situation of a woman employee and a man employee beyond the level of the same enterprise.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that several tools have been updated with a view to assisting employers to carry out objective job evaluation, namely: (1) the Digital Guide to Equal Pay for Men and Women published in September 2020 by the Labour Foundation that addresses the role of job evaluation systems and factors that can contribute to equal pay; (2) the Quickscan Equal Pay developed by the NIHR; and (3) the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration and the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual. The Government adds that WOMEN Inc. was awarded a grant, which was used in 2021 and 2022 for various activities aimed at raising employers’ awareness and providing them with tools to promote equal pay, such as a roadmap for employers in order to assess and address the gender pay gap within their company. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that, as a result of the forthcoming implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive of 2023, organizations will have to be more transparent as regards their pay system, including pay progression of workers. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on: (i) the proactive measures taken, in cooperation with the social partners, to raise awareness of and promote the use of available tools that assist employers in developing objective job evaluation systems and determining rates of remuneration without gender bias; (ii) any assessment made of the impact of these tools on ensuring that pay structures and performance-based pay systems are based on objective criteria free from gender bias, as well as on reducing the unexplained pay differentials between men and women; and (iii) any others measures taken or envisaged to promote, develop and implement practical approaches and methods for the objective evaluation of jobs, both in the public and private sectors, based on criteria that are free from gender bias, such as qualifications and skills, effort, responsibilities and conditions of work.