CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report, particularly the Employment Equality Act, 1998 ("the Act"), which was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 18 June, 1998, repealing the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, and the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Committee notes with interest that, as with the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 ("the 1974 Act"), the new Act reflects the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. It notes the Government's statement that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Act would be brought into operation sometime in the first half of 1999, following establishment of the infrastructure for equality contemplated in the new law.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Government indicates that section 2(1) of the Act defines remuneration as excluding pension rights, but that provision is made for equal treatment for men and women in relation to occupational benefits, including pensions, in Part VII of the Pensions Act and the regulations thereunder. The Committee notes Regulation 4 of the European Communities (Occupational Benefits Schemes) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 286 of 1997), amending section 69 of the Pensions Act to provide that, in determining whether an occupational benefit scheme complies with the principle of equal treatment, account shall not be taken of differences on the basis of sex in the levels of contributions made by the employer or the amount or value of benefits under the circumstances specified in that provision. The Committee once again recalls paragraph 17 of its General Survey on equal remuneration, 1986, which provides that all allowances paid under occupational social security schemes financed by the undertaking or industry concerned are part of remuneration in the undertaking and form part of the elements making up wages, in respect of which there should be no discrimination based on sex. The Government is therefore requested to indicate the manner in which section 2(1) of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Pensions Act, 1990, and subsequent amending legislation are applied in practice so as to ensure conformity with the principle of the Convention, particularly in light of the exemptions to the principle of equal treatment set forth in Regulation 69(1) of the European Communities (Occupational Benefit Schemes) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 286 of 1997).

3. Article 1(b). The Committee notes with interest that the new Act removes the requirement contained in the 1974 Act that the claimant be employed in the same place as the comparator before a claim for equal remuneration can be made. However, the Committee notes that, as with the 1974 Act, the new Act restricts the scope of comparison with employees who do "like work" to the same or an associated employer (section 19(1) of the Act). The Committee recalls that the scope of the comparison contemplated by the Convention should be "as wide as allowed at the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are coordinated" (see General Survey on equal remuneration, 1986, paragraph 22). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the basis for the comparators and its relationship to the range at which wages are set.

4. The Act establishes that, in order for a female worker to be entitled to receive the same rate of remuneration as a male worker, employed by the same or an associated employer, both employees must be engaged in "like work". The term "like work" is defined in section 7(1) of the Act to include three concepts: (1) work performed under the same or similar conditions; (2) work of a similar nature; and (3) work performed by one employee which is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions (section 7(1)(a)-(c) of the Act). In addition, the Committee notes that section19(3) of the Act provides that, where the claimant works for an associated employer of the comparator, he or she may not be deemed to be engaged in "like work" unless both employees have the same or reasonably comparable terms and conditions of employment. The Committee asks the Government to clarify the distinctions to be drawn between the different threshold requirements for "like work" and the manner in which sections 7(1)(a)-(c) and 19(3) are applied in practice.

5. Article 3. The Committee notes that the Act appears to contemplate the objective appraisal of jobs on the basis of the work to be performed, referring to a comparison between jobs "on the basis of skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions" (section 7(1)(c)) and a comparison between employees to determine whether they have "the same or reasonably comparable terms and conditions of employment" (section 19(3)). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of both these sections and on any measures taken or contemplated to promote objective appraisal of jobs within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

6. Article 4. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the methods of cooperation utilized between the Government and employers' and workers' organizations for the purposes of giving effect to the Convention.

7. The Government's report indicates that, pursuant to point 5.12 of the December 1996 national policy agreement on economic and social issues, entitled "Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness", the Economic and Social Research Institute is conducting a follow-up study on male-female wage differentials which is expected to be completed by the latter part of 1999. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide it with a copy of the study once it is available.

8. The Committee notes that the application of the Employment Equality Act is entrusted to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. With regard to the infrastructure necessary to implement the Act, the Government indicates that it is proposed to establish an Equality Authority to replace the Employment Equality Agency and an office of Director of Equality Investigations to provide redress of first instance. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information in its next report on the establishment, structure and activities of these agencies, and on the number of equal pay claims brought during the reporting period and any action taken.