CMNT_TITLE

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Bahamas (RATIFICATION: 2001)

Other comments on C100

Observation

2023
2018
2017

Direct Request

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

In view of the short report sent by the Government, the Committee notes with concern that the questions raised previously about the determination of rates of remuneration, objective job evaluation, collective agreements and the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms have not been addressed since 2004. The Committee reiterates that without the necessary information, it is not in a position to assess the effective implementation of the Convention, or any progress achieved since its ratification in 2001. It firmly hopes that the next report will contain full information on the points described below.

Article 1 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had pointed out that section 6 of the Employment Act, 2001, unduly limits the scope of “work of equal value” to work performed in the same establishment, requiring substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility, and which is performed under similar working conditions and refers to “rates of pay” which, pursuant to section 2(1), is narrower than the term “remuneration” set out in the Convention. The Committee notes that the Employment Act was amended in April 2017 by the Employment (Amendment) Act (No. 5 of 2017). However, it notes with deep concern that the Government did not seize this opportunity to amend section 6 of the Act with a view to giving full legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. It also notes that, in its reply to the list of issues and questions raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in relation to the sixth periodic report of the Bahamas, the Government continues to refer to section 6 of the Employment Act, 2001 (CEDAW/C/BHS/Q/6/Add.1, 9 July 2018, paragraph 80), despite the fact that CEDAW has been raising this issue for more than 15 years. The Committee, once again, urges the Government to take active steps to amend section 6 of the Employment Act, 2001, in order to give full legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the legislation allows for the comparison not only of jobs in the same establishment and requiring substantially the same skills, efforts and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, but also of work of an entirely different nature which is nevertheless of equal value, and provides for a broad definition of “remuneration” as set out in Article 1(a) of the Convention.

Article 2. Determining rates of remuneration. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which it is unable to provide rates of remuneration and specify how rates of remuneration are determined in the civil service and the public sector. In its 2012 General Survey, on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 670 and 671, the Committee indicates that member States bound by the Convention cannot be passive in their approach to implementing the Convention and that they are obliged to ensure the application of the principle of the Convention where the State is the employer or otherwise controls business or where the State is in a position to intervene in the wage-fixing process. The Government must take proactive measures in order to assess, promote and ensure the application of the principle of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information in its next report on the manner in which remuneration is determined in the civil service and the public sector, including copies of wage scales and information on the method and criteria used to establish them.

Article 3. Objective evaluation of jobs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has prepared a “White Paper” on legislation for the establishment of a National Productivity Council and that in a few years, it may be possible to provide reports relating to the development and use of objective job evaluation systems on the basis of the work performed in the public and the private sectors. While acknowledging that the implementation of the Convention may need to be achieved over time, the Committee recalls that, the right to equal remuneration for work of equal value being a fundamental right, the period for the full application of the Convention should be as short as possible, with deadlines being fixed for the attainment of specific objectives (2012 General Survey, paragraph 671). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made towards the adoption of legislation for the establishment of a National Productivity Council and, in the meantime, on any measures taken or agreements and policies adopted providing for objective job evaluation including the time frames proposed for their implementation.

Article 4. Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. Noting the indication from the Government that it does not have anything to report on this point, the Committee requests, once again, the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to encourage the social partners to discuss the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value and to include provisions to that effect in their agreements.

Enforcement. As the Government’s report is silent on this point, the Committee firmly hopes that the Government will take steps to improve the capacity of labour inspectors to detect and address pay inequalities between men and women for work of equal value, and to ensure that workers are informed of their right to equal pay for work of equal value and of the dispute resolution mechanisms available. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to provide information on any activities undertaken in this regard.

Practical application and statistics. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to take steps to determine the underlying reasons for wage differentials between men and women, and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to address these differentials in various occupations, particularly in the higher-level occupational category of senior officials and managers, where the wage gap is particularly striking. It notes that the Government has not provided the information requested. According to the statistics of 2017 to which the Government refers in its report, the long-existing average weekly wage gap between men and women in the accommodation and food service activities industry for New Providence (where 70 per cent of the population lives) was eliminated in 2013 – a year where the weekly wage reached a ten-year low – but reappeared as from 2014 and has been increasing ever since. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to take steps to determine the underlying reasons for wage differentials between men and women, and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to address these differentials in various occupations, particularly in the higher-level occupational category of senior officials and managers. The Government is also asked to continue to provide statistical information on the earnings of men and women in the various economic sectors and occupations in the public and private sectors.