Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

1.  The Committee notes the introduction on 31 May 2000 of Bill 1999/2000:143 to amend the Equal Opportunities Act, 1991, in order to harmonize the Act with other legislation prohibiting discrimination at work. The Committee notes with interest that the Bill includes a definition of the term "equivalent work" and requires employers and workers to promote equal opportunities for pay improvement for men and women. The Committee notes that, in addition to requiring employers to prepare annual equal pay action plans, the bill also requires employers to supply employee organizations, with whom they have a collective agreement, with the information necessary to permit those organizations to participate in the mapping and analysis of pay systems and pay differentials as well as in the preparation of the action plan. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the status of the Bill and to forward a copy to the Office once it is adopted.

2.  The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning the pay disparity between women and men in county councils, where the Committee noted that the disparity increases with age and level of education. Recalling once again that women and men should benefit equally from greater experience and seniority, the Committee reiterates its request that the Government indicate the measures taken or contemplated to address the underlying causes for the persisting wage differences between men and women employed in county councils and to reduce or eliminate them.

3.  The Committee had previously noted the Working Life Institute’s special research and development programme on "Wage Formation and Job Evaluation" (LÖV). In this respect, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the HAC system, the basic pay evaluation model developed through the LÖV programme. The Government indicates that the LÖV programme has demonstrated that the shift from collective agreements to local and individual wage setting in local government has enabled women to become more closely involved in wage setting as workplace representatives, union representatives and supervisory staff. It has also demonstrated the feasibility of establishing a basis in the workplace itself for the promotion of non-discriminatory wage setting. The Committee notes that the LÖV programme has been followed up through the Lönelots (Wage Pilot) programme, a two-year job evaluation project developed by the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman to promote the principle of equal pay. The Government indicates that, as individually differentiated rates of pay are the prevailing principle of wage setting in the country, the project is aimed at developing and communicating methods of gender-neutral job evaluation and individual assessment of qualifications for all wage components bearing on an individual’s rate of pay. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep it informed of developments in the framework of the Wage Pilot project and of progress made through this project in implementing the principle of equal pay.

4.  With regard to its previous comments concerning the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman’s review of equal opportunities plans prepared by employers, the Committee notes that a survey conducted by the Ombudsman and SCB in 1999 showed that many employers have failed to prepare such plans. Moreover, the Ombudsman’s examination of over 500 employer plans revealed that the plans often omit one or more of the criteria established in the Act, particularly quantifiable objectives and concrete proposals. Noting that the Ombudsman has conducted two training and review projects focusing on cooperation with trade union organizations, the Committee asks the Government to indicate any additional measures taken to promote employers’ understanding of and compliance with the requirements of the Act in respect of the formulation of equal opportunities plans, particularly with regard to wage mapping.

5.  The Committee notes the information provided by the Government with regard to a test case brought by the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman before the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC), in which the Ombudsman requested that a subpoena be issued against an employer who had not carried out wage mapping as required by the Equal Opportunities Act, 1991. The dispute concerned the manner in which the wage comparison should be carried out and the right of trade unions to have access to information on the salaries of persons other than their own members. The Government indicates that, in December 1998, the EOC declined to issue the subpoena, holding that employers were under no obligation to supply particulars of the salaries of individual employees to the union organizations representing other employees of the company. The Committee notes that, in the event of the adoption of Bill 1999/2000:143, the trade unions would have greater access to salary information. The Government is asked to continue to supply information on all developments in this regard.

6.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the number and outcome of pay discrimination cases brought before the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman. It also notes the information provided regarding the status of the pay discrimination cases pending before the labour courts. In respect of its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s clarification regarding pay discrimination case AD/1998 No. 66, Equal Opportunities Ombudsman v. Örebro County Council. Noting from the report that case No. 66 is still pending in the labour court, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep it informed with regard to the outcome of the case and provide a copy of the text of the final decision once it is handed down.