CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has taken note of the information supplied by the Government in response to its previous direct request concerning the system of job appraisal.

1. The Committee notes with interest that section 96 of the articled text of the Labour Procedure Act approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 521/1990 of 27 April 1990 provides for the reversal of the burden of proof, which will be laid on the defendant in proceedings in which the existence of signs of discrimination on grounds of sex has been alleged; this step should facilitate punishment for wage discrimination. The Committee has also noted with interest judgement no. 145/1991 of the Constitutional Court, which confirms that section 28 of the Workers' Charter should be interpreted in the light of the Convention to provide for equal remuneration for work of equal value, and which states that work cannot be evaluated on the basis of criteria connected with the sex of the workers, and in particular with the status of women, and reflecting social or economic undervaluations of women's work. The Committee asks the Government to be good enough to supply in its forthcoming reports information on court decisions relating to the questions dealt with in the Convention.

2. The Committee has noted the information supplied in the report concerning labour inspection with regard to equal remuneration between 1989 and 1990. The Committee asks the Government to be good enough to state in its next report what action has been taken on the violations detected.

3. The Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that the General Union of Workers (UGT) considers that the recognition of equality in the Constitution and the Workers' Charter does not prevent wage differences contrary to the Convention from occurring in practice. According to UGT, wage discrimination means in practice that women are receiving remuneration 25 to 30 per cent less than that received by men. This situation is due to direct discrimination, where the women receive smaller wages even when they are in the same occupational category and doing equal work with men; to indirect discrimination, where wage differences result from differences in other spheres such as access to better-paid occupations, more significant occupational categories or undertakings that pay higher wages; and to differences in in-house promotion and job rotation. In its reply the Government states that, while the Constitution and the national law lay down the principle of equal remuneration without discrimination on grounds of sex, that principle does not mean that no wage differences can be justified. With regard to the case in which women receive lower wages than men in breach of section 28 of the Workers' Charter, the Committee asks the Government to refer to its foregoing request concerning the action taken in regard to detected offences of violation of equal remuneration.

Furthermore, the Committee finds that it has no recent information on wage levels from which to assess how the principle of equal remuneration spelt out in the national law is applied in practice. The Committee asks the Government to be good enough to supply in its next report:

(i) the wage scales applicable in the public service, showing the distribution of men and women at the various levels;

(ii) the text of collective agreements or other texts which fix wage levels in the various sectors of activity, showing if possible the proportion of women covered by such collective agreements and the distribution of men and women at the various levels;

(iii) statistical data on wage rates and the average incomes received by men and women, if possible by occupation, branch of activity, seniority and level of qualifications, together with information on the corresponding proportion of women;

(iv) information concerning any inquiry or survey begun or planned for the purpose of determining the causes of wage disparities and concerning the measures taken or contemplated as a result of such surveys.