Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided in the Government's report.

1. It notes, in particular, the statement according to which a report on a new equal pay strategy had been submitted to the Storting by the Government which would enable better fulfilment of the aims of the Convention. This new strategy stresses occupational segregation as the major factor in explaining the sex-based wage differentials and suggests a more direct and comprehensive approach to equal pay, consisting of various proposals for amendment of the present legislation, such as:

- an amendment of the Equal Pay Act in order to clarify the concept of "work of equal value" in its section 5 by setting criteria for work value assessment, thus emphasizing objective values such as the skill, the effort and the responsibility required for the performance of a specific job and the conditions under which the job is performed;

- an amendment of section 14 of the Act prescribing the conditions for bringing a case before the Labour Disputes Court (which is at present reserved for labour market organizations) so as either to grant the Equal Status Ombud authority to bring a case before the Labour Disputes Court or to give the Ombud a mandate to require a party to use that possibility, or to allow the Appeals Board to take decisions on the validity of collective agreements; and

- an amendment of the Act in order to reverse the burden of proof in cases of complaints under sections 4 and 5.

Noting that bills will be before the Storting on these amendments in Autumn 1994, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the debates on these proposed amendments. It hopes to receive a copy of the amending Act when passed, as well as to be kept informed on any other measures of implementation envisaged.

2. The Committee also notes the proposal of the Equal Status Ombud to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to require stronger proof for accepting "market value" as a criterion for wage determination. According to decisions from the Appeals Board, market value makes it possible for employers to give a higher salary to an employee as remuneration for skills that are not specifically required for the job, and the Committee notes from several decisions summarized in the Government's report that challenges to the payment of higher salaries to men have been lost on this ground. The Committee would like to be kept informed of any developments in this regard, particularly in view of the proposal to reverse the burden of proof in equal pay cases.

3. The Committee notes the programme on the development of pay and working conditions in female-dominated jobs which highlights the structural and individual barriers to equal pay. It also notes the steps taken within the Nordic framework and the public information booklet describing the project "Equal Pay for Women and Men in the Nordic Countries" which gives information on recent debates on equal pay subjects. Noting that the project will conclude in 1994 with a report outlining equal pay strategies and measures, the Committee would be grateful to receive a copy of the report.

4. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on certain other points.