Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2003, publiée 92ème session CIT (2004)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the attached documentation. It asks the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

1. Further to its observation concerning the amendments adopted recently by Act No. 733 of 2000 to the Equal Opportunities Act (Act No. 433 of 1991), the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these amendments are intended to support the efforts of the social partners to rectify more rapidly pay differentials due to gender. With respect to the obligation of employers to prepare annual equality plans, including wage mapping, it notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 111 of January 2002 that the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman examined around 500 equality plans between 2000 and mid-2001 and found that the equality plans were often deficient, especially in the matter of wage mapping. It notes the Government’s statement that in response the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman has carried out extensive training for trade union representatives, and since January 2001, has undertaken additional information and education measures to disseminate information to employers and workers associations respecting the obligation to carry out annual wage mapping . It also notes the statement that nearly 10,000 private enterprises have been reminded of their duty under the Equal Opportunities Act and that 500 have been selected for scrutiny of their action plans for equal pay for men and women workers for work of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to provide information with its next report on the manner in which the equal opportunities plans and wage mapping are being implemented in practice and the results obtained.

2. The Committee further notes the introduction of the opportunity for employees’ associations to ask the Equal Opportunities Commission for a writ of subpoena against employers who are not fulfilling their obligations and the shift in the burden of proof to the employer in discrimination cases together with the consequent amendment to the Act respecting the judicial procedure to be followed in labour disputes (Act No. 371 of 1974). Please provide information on the impact of these amendments on equal pay cases.

3. Noting from the Government’s report that three-year collective agreements were concluded at the level of national federations for most of the labour market in 2001, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the National Mediation Office finds that the social partners at the central level share a declared intent to achieve results and that a large number of organizations have compiled guides on equal pay of their own. In this respect, it notes the Government’s statement that unions (within the domain of the Industrial Agreement and the Salaried Employees’ Union (HTF)) raised the issue that the cost of rectifying unjustified pay differentials between men and women workers should not be deducted from the resources available for pay settlements. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information with its next report on the funds that are to be used for compensating pay differences in cases where unequal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value has been identified.

4. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that as from 1 January 2001 the National Mediation Office is the national authority responsible for official wage statistics and that statistical information is compiled by Statistics Sweden (SCB). It notes with interest the additional efforts undertaken by SCB to combat inequalities in remuneration through the compilation of data that also incorporate a realistic appreciation of wage inequalities. The Committee notes that the Government has commissioned for 2004 a more refined occupational classification system in order to detect pay inequalities more effectively and asks the Government to provide information with its next report on the progress achieved by SCB in respect of occupational classification, including copies of any relevant publications, and to continue providing statistical information.

5. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Lönelots (Wage pilot) and HAC system (the basic pay evaluation model developed from the Löv programme) have been fully operational since the beginning of 2001. It notes that this system is designed to meet the demand for a method suitable for smaller enterprises with limited resources for development work of their own and that it provides a method for analysing wage differentials more closely. The Committee notes that both the publications Work evaluation: Theory, practice and critics and Equal opportunities analysis of pay differentials - Step by step can be downloaded free of charge from the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman’s web site. The Committee asks the Government to provide information with its next report on the progress made through this project in implementing the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

6. The Committee notes the information provided by the Swedish Agency for Government Employers indicating that the findings of the report of May 2002 entitled Small unfair pay differentials between men and women in national government, show an unexplained pay differential of 1.8 per cent between men and women workers and that this is due to fewer women holding senior appointments. It notes the statement that, if allowance is made for changes in the structure of national government appointments, this unexplained pay differential declined between 1995 and 2000. The Committee also notes that measures are being adopted to achieve a more equal gender balance at all levels in the national administration and asks the Government to provide information with its next report on the results obtained and a copy of any relevant publications, including the above report.

7. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the number and outcome of pay discrimination cases brought before the Labour Court including cases involving equal value. It notes that, in a number of cases, whilst the jobs being compared have been deemed to be of equal value, the Court has nevertheless held that, on objective grounds, sex discrimination in pay had not been established. The Committee asks the Government to provide information about the objective grounds which have been established and which have prevented an award of equal pay for work deemed to be of equal value to the complainant. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on other cases involving the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.