Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 111) concernant la discrimination (emploi et profession), 1958 - République de Corée (Ratification: 1998)

Autre commentaire sur C111

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF), communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) received on 20 September 2019. It further notes the observations of the KCTU and the KEF, communicated with the Government’s supplementary information, as well as the comments of the Government on those observations.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against discrimination. Legislation and practical measures. In its previous comment, the Committee, noting the lack of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, urged the Government to introduce provisions covering, as a minimum, all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, namely race, colour, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. It also asked the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to fight against discrimination, to raise awareness and to promote tolerance and respect among the population. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, under the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act, anyone subjected to discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, disability, age, social status, region of origin, state of origin, ethnic origin, physical condition, marital status, pregnancy or childbirth, types or forms of family, race, skin colour, ideology or political opinion, record of crime whose effect of punishment has been extinguished, sexual orientation, academic career, and medical history, can file a complaint with the Commission which may recommend a remedy, system improvement, disciplinary action or other action. In this regard, the Committee notes that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) is not a judicial body and can only make recommendations. It also notes that the number of petitions alleging discrimination filed with the NHRCK has dropped from 3,152 in 2017 to 2,185 in 2018 (a decrease of 30.7 per cent for discrimination in general and of 24 per cent for discrimination in employment over the same period) and that, since the establishment of the NHRCK in 2001, discrimination concerning employment, dismissal, and wages is the second most important subject of petitions, representing 29 per cent of all petitions filed. The Government emphasizes that one of the tasks listed in the Third National Action Plan for Human Rights (2018–2022) is “finding ways to establish a framework act on anti-discrimination” and that a legislative proposal for an Anti-Discrimination Act was submitted to the National Assembly on 29 June 2020. The proposed text prohibits direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on 23 grounds, including race, gender, religion, political views and place of birth. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that, where legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. It notes the KEF’s observations questioning the necessity of such general anti-discrimination legislation. It also notes the KCTU’s statement indicating that the NHRCK, in a resolution adopted on 30 June 2020, urged the Government to establish the Anti-Discrimination Act. The KCTU considers that the proposed bill falls short of the remedies included in the recommendations made by the NHRCK in 2006 (especially on the authority of the NHRCK to issue corrective orders). Regarding awareness-raising measures to fight discrimination, the Committee notes that the NHRCK has set up education programmes to raise awareness on discrimination, including online, which have reached 340,000 persons in 2018 (from 249,428 in 2017). Government programmes have provided education on multiculturalism to 120,000 persons in 2018 and a public survey, carried out every three years, reveals that, in April 2019, the level of acceptance of multiculturalism was at 52.8 points among adults and 71.2 points among teenagers. The Government indicates that it plans to produce a case book on discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to: (i) keep it informed of the progress towards the adoption of the Anti-Discrimination Act, ensuring that the provisions of this Act cover, as a minimum, all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, and provide a copy once adopted; (ii) continue to provide information on measures taken to fight discrimination in practice, as well as to raise awareness of these issues among the population; and (iii) communicate information on the results of the next survey regarding acceptance of multiculturalism among the population, including statistics and any follow-up given to the results of the said survey.

Harassment at work. The Committee notes that, in its observations communicated with the Government’s supplementary information on 30 October 2020, the KCTU indicates that a chapter on workplace harassment was included in the Labour Standards Act in 2019 (articles 76-2 and 76 3) but emphasizes that: (1) the Act does not apply to workplaces with fewer than five employees which are exposed to harassment, verbal abuse and human rights violations; (2) it is not possible to address harassment faced by certain non-regular workers nor harassment perpetrated by persons other than the employers (such as their relatives); (3) once harassment is reported, the right of the trade union to participate in the investigation process should be guaranteed and an obligation of confidentiality should be imposed on the investigators; (4) sanctions such as fines should be imposed in case of direct workplace harassment by an employer, and criminal proceedings engaged in case of repeated harassment; and (5) in order to prevent harassment, there should be an obligation on the employer to conduct education programmes and to assess the risks. The Committee also notes that, in reply to these observations, the Government states that it continuously strengthens the implementation of the workplace policy on preventing harassment. It recognizes that workers in small businesses should also be protected from harassment but that the extension of this protection to workplaces with fewer than five workers requires a comprehensive review of its enforceability. It adds that on 2 September 2020 a bill to amend the Labour Standards Act with a view to providing for sanctions on employers who commit workplace harassment, was proposed. Finally, the Government emphasizes that it has included compulsory education regarding harassment in occupational safety and health education since January 2020. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the status of the proposal to amend the Labour Standards Act with a view to providing for sanctions in the case of workplace harassment; and (ii) any progress in expanding the scope of protection from harassment to workplaces with fewer than five workers. Please provide information also on the manner in which it is ensured that workers, including non-regular workers, are protected from harassment in employment and occupation, including from persons other than the employer.

Article 1(1)(a). Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. Legislative developments and practical measures. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the implementation of the measures adopted, the methodology used, including the definition of sexual harassment adopted, and the findings of the special investigation launched by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) as well as any steps taken to follow up with a view to addressing sexual harassment in the public sector; and (2) the implementation and enforcement of the new provisions on sexual harassment contained in the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act and any measures taken in this regard in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sexual harassment is defined under article 3 of the Framework Act on Gender Equality. It also notes the Government’s statement that, in 2018, it carried out special inspections of some 2,000 public organizations to ensure that its measures to prevent sexual harassment in the public sector were effective. More than 98 per cent of the surveyed organizations had grievance counselling services, guidelines for prevention, designated grievance counsellors, grievance deliberation committees and other related systems in place. However, it was found that most of them left room for improvement, in relation to access to counselling and expertise in dealing with sexual harassment cases. In July 2018, the Government introduced new measures such as setting standards for disciplinary action against managers who do not act to protect victims, making it mandatory for organizations to establish a manual on handling cases, and strengthening education for managers and investigative agencies. In June 2019, the Government made it mandatory for all workers at central and regional government bodies to receive gender sensitive education and it specified the measures to be taken by managers of central government bodies in order to prevent sexual harassment. The Government took steps to raise the participation rate of high-ranking officials in public organizations in preventive education (from less than 50 per cent in 2018 to 70 per cent in 2019). The Government also indicates that it strengthened the sanctions against perpetrators as well as the protection of victims. Thus, in April 2019 it added all types of sexual violence to the prescribed grounds for disqualification and ipso facto retirement from public service (the disqualification period being extended from two to three years). In addition, in May 2019, it established standards for disciplinary action in the case of a failure to protect sexual harassment victims, intentional concealment of the case or “whitewashing” of the case. Regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance Act, the Government recalls some of the amendments made in order to strengthen the fight against sexual harassment and better protect victims. It also provides information on the results of workplace guidance and monitoring as well as on the status of reported cases. The Committee notes, from the 2018 report of the NHRCK, that it undertook several surveys related to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including at work, where it notes that such harassment and violence frequently take place in a context of hierarchical power despite continued efforts to root out such practices. It also found that public systems for the prevention and remedying of such acts were either absent or had stopped functioning properly. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted and implemented in order to address effectively the issue of sexual harassment at work, in the public as well as in the private sector, and to provide information on any amendments to existing legislation or legislative or policy development in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the relevant sections of the Standardized Employment Rules (proposal) to which the Government referred in its previous report.

Discrimination based on sex and employment status. The Committee recalls that many of the non-regular workers (that is part-time, temporary or fixed-term and dispatched workers) are women and therefore discrimination on the basis of employment status has an impact on the employment of women, in particular on their conditions of employment. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) assess the impact of the legislative reforms on non-regular workers and take the necessary steps to ensure that such workers do not face discrimination on the basis of sex and employment status; and (2) ensure that they can exercise their rights, and are effectively protected against reprisals. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it held several meetings with interested parties with a view to establishing and implementing guidelines for the conversion of non-regular workers into regular status in the public sector. It also notes that, under article 9 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees, any fixed-term or part-time worker subjected to discriminatory treatment based on employment status may apply for correction of such discriminatory treatment with the Labour Relations Commission within six months of the discriminatory act. Labour inspectors may also request employers to take corrective action when they detect such discriminatory practices. Article 16 of the same Act provides these workers with protection from retaliation. The Government adds that, in 2018, it introduced “special inspections” on discriminatory practices in workplaces with a large number of non-regular employees. The Committee also notes the FKTU’s and KCTU’s observations that the protection offered by the Act is ineffective because there are too many limitations. The FKTU adds that this Act, as well as the Labour Standards Act, should be amended to provide better protection. The Government replies that reforming the system for correcting discrimination requires careful consideration as opinions vary among workers, employers and experts.

The Committee had also asked the Government to provide information on the implementation of a project to convert non-regular workers in the public sector to regular workers in public entities, and any such steps taken for the private sector, as well as information on any measures taken to improve the conditions of employment of non-regular workers, in particular women workers, both in the private and the public sectors. Concerning the public sector, the Government explains that its prior concern in doing so is to ensure job stability while gradually improving the working conditions of these workers. The plan is to convert 205,000 non-regular workers into regular employment by 2020. As of May 2020, the conversion was decided for 195,570 workers and completed for 180,594 of them (i.e. 95.4 and 88.1 per cent respectively). An additional 6,195 conversions of workers to regular employment were decided in a second phase (May 2020). According to a survey cited by the Government and carried out in May 2019 on 1,815 workers whose employment was converted, their average annual salary increased by 16.3 per cent and these workers reported a high level of satisfaction. The FKTU recognizes that the working environment of workers whose status was regularized improved to a certain degree but is of the view that achievements are insufficient and warns against the creation of “regular workers in name only”. In this regard, the KCTU refers to the practice of still classifying converted workers to a different category than the category of “fully regular” workers and applying to them a different system of wages, welfare and benefits. It states that, despite these measures, the number of non-regular workers grew from 2014 to 2018 in number as well as in proportion. The KCTU also states that many workers are excluded from the possibility of being converted to regular status, and that this affects women more than men as they work in the most precarious jobs. The Government replies that it provides consulting support and on-site guidance in order to ensure that the system is non-discriminatory.

As regards the private sector, the Government underlines the difficulty of prohibiting non-regular employment or force the conversion of non-regular workers into a regular employment. It mentions however that, in order to encourage voluntary conversion among private businesses, it runs a conversion support programme that covers part of the labour costs of businesses which voluntarily convert non-regular workers to regular employment. The Committee notes the observations of the KEF according to which a more realistic approach would be to prevent “unreasonable discrimination” against non-regular workers through legislation rather than to force conversion of these workers into regular workers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has been seeking better employment for women both quantitatively and qualitatively, in particular through the strengthening of childbirth and childcare support for non-regular female workers. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to refer to the comments made under the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the progress achieved regarding the conversion of non-regular workers – in the public as well as in the private sector – into regular workers, including statistics disaggregated by sex on the number of workers concerned and their proportion among the overall number of workers. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the outcomes of the special inspections on discriminatory practices introduced in 2018, as well as on the number of cases submitted to the Labour Relations Commission and their result; and (ii) any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system in place for protecting workers from retaliation when filing claims for discrimination and providing appropriate remedy to victims of such practices.

Migrant workers. Previously, while welcoming the measures that had been adopted to contribute to the protection of foreign workers, the Committee asked the Government to: (1) monitor and review the impact of the Employment Permit System (EPS) on the situation of migrant workers, in particular with respect to the possibility to change workplace on the basis of “unfair treatment by the employer”; and (2) review the complaint procedure to determine the reasons for the high rate of cases relating to employment discrimination dropped or abandoned. As regards the former, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) in February 2019, it adopted the revised “Notification on grounds of workplace changes not attributable to foreign workers” (No. 2019-7) which provides for an immediate change of workplace in cases of sexual violence and expanded the list of perpetrators of unfair treatment by specifying, in addition to the employer, colleagues as well as lineal ascendants and descendants of the employer; and (2) it amended the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign workers by adding article 22-2, which entered into force on 16 July 2019 and imposed that accommodation for foreign workers meet the standards under the Labour Standards Act and that information on the accommodation be provided to migrant workers before signing an employment contract (a violation of this provision being a valid reason to change workplace according to article 25.1.2 as amended). The Government adds that 59.3 per cent of the workplaces subject to guidance and inspections in 2018 were found in violation of the law as regards migrant workers. The KCTU, in its observations, states that 88.3 per cent of workplaces were found to be in violation of the law in inspections carried out by the Ministry of Employment and Labour in March and April 2018 and points out that, out of the 1,478 specific instances of illegality found, 93.7 per cent were concluded with orders to make corrections and only two cases resulted in judicial proceedings. It adds that it remains exceedingly difficult for migrant workers to prove their employers’ wrongdoings, including on issues of substandard accommodation or unfair treatment (such as non-payment of wages, false or non-recording of hours worked, charging migrant workers in case they change employers), and, as a result, many abandon their original employers illegally, notwithstanding the wages they are owed, and are compelled to work informally with lower pay and without legal protection. The KCTU cites several examples of severe adverse consequences suffered by migrant workers due to the EPS and indicates that migrant workers filed a case with the Constitutional Court in March 2020 arguing that the EPS is unconstitutional and in breach of their basic rights. According to the Government, however, when a migrant worker fails to provide enough evidence, an employment centre may check directly if the accommodation is substandard. It adds that 99.9 per cent of the approximately 10,000 requests per year of change of workplace based on reasons not attributable to the migrant worker are granted. The Committee further notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended that the Government amend the EPS and other legislation applicable to migrant workers to: (1) facilitate family reunification; (2) remove restrictions that prevent migrant workers from changing their workplace; (3) extend the maximum period of stay; and (4) enable migrant workers to change to a different type of visa more easily with a view to facilitate migrant workers’ access to long-term or permanent residence permits and reduce the risk of irregular stays (CERD/C/KOR/CO/17-19, 10 January 2019, paragraphs 9 and 10).

As regard the reasons for the high rate of cases relating to employment discrimination dropped or abandoned, the Government indicates that there are no statistics on the reasons for the abandonment of cases but that, in most cases, it is because an amicable mutual agreement was concluded. The Government states that, out of the 17 cases filed between July 2016 and June 2019 with the NHRCK, only one resulted in conciliation, all the others being rejected or dismissed. It recognizes that migrant workers remain more vulnerable and face more difficulty in filing a request for remedy than Korean workers due to their residence status and linguistic and cultural barriers. The Government undertakes to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that migrant workers enjoy equal rights as regards applications for a remedy. In this regard, the Committee notes that the NHRCK prepared in 2018 a draft for the updated version of the Guidelines on the Human Rights of Migrants. Finally, it recalls that the CERD called for: (1) amending the legislation applicable to migrant workers to eliminate discrimination against non-citizens in relation to working conditions and work requirements; (2) strengthening labour inspections in industries employing migrant workers; and (3) guaranteeing access to adequate remedies for migrant workers in cases where their rights are violated and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable and sanctioned with appropriate penalties (CERD/C/KOR/CO/17-19, paragraph 12). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to improve the protection of migrant workers against discriminatory treatment and their access to justice; and to provide statistics on the number of complaints filed and their outcome, including the number of cases abandoned and the reasons for such. Please also provide a copy of the updated Guidelines on the Human Rights of Migrants, if adopted.

General observation of 2018. With regard to the above issues, and in more general terms, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Article 1(1)(b). Additional grounds of discrimination. Age and disability. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to ensure that workers alleging discrimination on the basis of age or disability could effectively exercise their rights and have access to effective remedies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that discrimination in employment based on age is prohibited under article 4-4 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion and that victims may seek remedy with the NHRCK. The Committee also notes that the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy against Infringement of their Rights, etc. also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment (articles 10, 11, 12, 32 and 33). However, noting, from the information provided by the Government, that the NHRCK only makes “recommendations” to the employer or the relevant inspectorate and that the Ministry of Employment and Labour may issue a corrective order on the request of the victim if the employer is not complying with the recommendation “with no justifiable reason” and if “the damage done is deemed serious” the Committee considers that these conditions limit to some extent the possibility of victims of discriminations based on age or disability to obtain redress. It further notes that the Government indicates that some cases may have been abandoned or withdrawn by complainants due to amicable settlement during the investigation but acknowledges that some of them have been dropped by fear of reprisal or doubts about the possibility of a prompt settlement or remedy. As regards the latter, the Committee notes the Government’s pledge to monitor the issue and find ways to address it. The Committee also notes the KCTU’s observations that the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion is not sufficiently enforced, that sanctions are minimal and that age-based discrimination persists in more complex and less-visible manners than open discrimination in job advertisement. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number of cases relating to discrimination in employment based on age or disability and on any initiative taken to address efficiently the issue of victims’ access to justice in such cases.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women. Policy developments. Previously, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of several gender equality plans and on any steps taken to address gender stereotypes and career interruptions and their impact on women’s participation in employment. Regarding gender equality plans, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Second Basic Plan for Gender Equality Policies (2018–2022) sets out and implements various policy tasks to ensure equal rights and opportunities between men and women and create a society that promotes work–life balance. An implementation plan is formulated every year. The Government declares having reinforced its efforts to address gender discrimination in the mass media and online and provided gender equality education to workers who are in contact with the public or those engaged in occupations that have an important social impact. It is also working to reduce gender gaps in the labour market, to improve the working environment in sectors predominantly occupied by women, and to increase the number of women scientists and engineers by supporting them to return to work after a career break. The Government adds that it is enhancing gender balance in the private sector through public-private partnerships such as the signing of the “Gender Balance Inclusive Growth Partnership Agreement” with 10 economic organizations and the signing of autonomous agreements with enterprises. In the public sector, it has created a division dedicated at promoting gender equality and gender equality policies in eight major ministries. The Committee notes the results of the 2019 implementation monitoring shared by the Government. It welcomes the fact that all goals for 2019 have been achieved, and in many cases surpassed, and that more women are occupying positions with greater decision-making authority in the public sector. It notes, however, that their proportion remains low (under 26 per cent), except in the education sector (principals and vice-principals) and in government committees under the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Furthermore, the objectives set for 2022 are low (on average 19.2 per cent of women) and even lower for senior civil service officers and managerial employees at public organizations (10 per cent), military officers (8.8 per cent), and managerial positions at both the Korean National Police Agency (7 per cent) and Korean Coast Guard (2.8 per cent). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has established and implemented the “Women’s Employment Plan” as the Sixth Basic Plan for Equal Employment Opportunities focusing on three aspects (preventing career breaks, supporting reemployment after a career break and creating a non-discriminatory working environment) with seven major projects and 64 implementation strategies. These strategies include, in particular, establishing a remedy process against gender discrimination at the level of the Labour Relations Commission; strengthening sexual harassment prevention and monitoring; expanding infrastructure, such as dedicated labour inspectors and equal opportunity counselling centres; identifying gender in employment impact assessment; increasing investments in businesses performing well in terms of female employment; and encouraging more women to start a business. According to the Government, as of December 2019, 46.9 per cent of these 64 strategies had been completed while another 34.4 per cent were in progress (some had been delayed, notably because the process of amending legislation had been postponed).

As regards the steps taken to address gender stereotypes, the Government indicates that, as of June 2019, both the female employment rate and the female labour force participation were at a record high (58.3 and 60.7 per cent, respectively) while recognizing that the labour force participation of women remains lower than the average for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and that the gender employment gap remains high (17.6 percentage point difference). In the supplementary information, the Government indicates that the female employment rate fell to 56.9 per cent as of July 2020. This is due to the fact that the service sector, which employs a large number of women and provides face-to-face services (such as accommodation, food service, education, wholesale and retail business), has been hit hard with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government affirms that, in response, it has strengthened support to ensure that no one is left behind when it comes to maternal protection by providing childbirth benefits for persons not covered by employment insurance and expanding childcare leave benefits for spouses. It is also strengthening support to ensure that the “Women’s Employment Plan” is fully carried out in order to secure quality jobs for women. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to implement the various gender equality plans, including detailed information on measures addressing gender discrimination in the mass media and online as well as on the number and nature of gender equality education programmes developed. It also asks the Government to provide statistical data on the distribution of men and women in various types of economic activity and occupations both in the public and private sectors in order to assess the progress made. Please provide updated information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the respective employment rates of men and women.

Article 3(d). Participation of women in the police force. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request to step up efforts to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women at all levels in the police force, the Government indicates that it has brought the ratio of women in the annual number of newly hired police officers from 16.5 per cent in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2018. The Committee notes, however, that as of late 2019, only 11.7 per cent of police officers were women, and that the target for 2022 is set at 15 per cent. It also notes that the ratio of women does not exceed 6 per cent for inspectors and higher positions. While welcoming the progress achieved, the Committee wishes to point out that it is important also to deal with the persistent underlying causes that still need to be addressed, and that gender stereotypes and occupational segregation continue to be major underlying issues affecting the full application of the Convention, in particular in male-dominated sectors. The Committee asks the Government to continue its efforts to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women at all levels in the police force, including at senior level, and to provide information on the results achieved in this regard. The Committee also asks the Government to envisage measures to make the nature of the job more attractive to women, such as for example, a bigger focus on flexible working arrangements to help improve the work–life balance for police officers.