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

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

1. The Committee notes from the report that a survey was carried out by the Wages Department (LTD) in 1991 on equal remuneration between the sexes in all branches of the Industry. The study showed that, although there were no cases of direct discrimination, there were cases of indirect discrimination in 78 out of the 635 companies covered by the survey. The findings were communicated back to all the employers so as to raise their attention to the problem of indirect pay discrimination. The Government points out, however, that under section 21 of the 1989 Equal Treatment Act the Minister of Social Affairs was not obliged to take action against the employers since such cases are linked to the objective justification of the discrimination in the particular situation and thus fall outside of the scope of such follow-up action.

The Committee requests the Government to explain in its next report how employers guilty of indirect pay discrimination between men and women are sanctioned, bearing in mind that section 1 of the 1989 Act defines indirect discrimination as "discrimination based on characteristics other than sex which result in discrimination on grounds of sex, unless such discrimination is justified objectively". For instance, are there any court cases showing how the phrase "justified objectively" is to be applied?

2. Regarding its previous comments on "breadwinner premiums" which were found to be a form of indirect discrimination under the 1989 Act, the Committee notes that the LTD's 1991 survey did not encounter any such discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of the new survey mentioned in the report which is presently being undertaken by the Collective Employment Conditions Department (CAO) concerning possible remunerative preference given to "breadwinners" in collective agreements.