CMNT_TITLE

With reference to its previous direct requests, the Committee notes the Government's report and the attached documentation.

1. With reference to the statistics compiled by the Regional Employment Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (PREALC), which showed that the average monthly earnings of women workers in most economic activities, both in the public and private sectors, are in general lower than those of men, the Committee requested the Government in its previous comments to supply: (a) information as the reasons for these wage disparities between the sexes; and (b) the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to remedy these inequalities. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the manner in which women are integrated into the labour market and to factors of a cultural nature, as well as the statistical methodologies, as possible explanations for the wage disparities, but does not mention the measures taken to remedy them. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged in this respect. In this context, the Committee refers to the explanations contained in paragraphs 22 and 23 of its 1986 General Survey on Equal Remuneration and to the principles set out in Article 2 of the Convention, which establishes the obligation to ensure equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

2. Since the matter is not referred to in the Government's report, the Committee requests it to supply detailed information on the methods used in conducting objective and impartial job evaluations, as required by section 145 of the Labour Code read in conjunction with section 10 of the Code (relating to violations of the principle of equal remuneration).

3. With reference to the 1991 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice in an action to declare unconstitutional section 145 of the Labour Code (the determination of the period of retroactivity of a ruling establishing that the principle of equal wages has been violated), the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply explanations on the scope of the Court's ruling, which is merely of an interpretative nature. Is its scope erga omnes? Will it continue to be applied in future? Might it only be applied in the case in question?