Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Gabon (Ratification: 1961)

Other comments on C100

Observation

2023
2020
2017
2002

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that for very many years it has been emphasizing the need to amend section 140 of the Labour Code, the provisions of which are too restrictive in relation to those of the Convention and do not allow the comparison of work that is of a different nature and performed under different conditions (skills/qualifications, responsibilities, effort, conditions of work), but which could be of equal value overall. The Committee recalls that section 140 makes the application of equal remuneration conditional on the existence of “equal conditions of work, skills and output”, on the one hand, and work “of equal value and of the same nature”, on the other. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Labour Code is currently being updated, which is a priority project for the Government. It indicates that section 140 will be modified and become section 171 of the draft Labour Code, which provides that: “For work of equal value, remuneration shall be equal for all workers, irrespective of their origin, opinion, sex and age. Equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and of the same nature refers to the remuneration rates set without discrimination on the basis of sex.” The Committee notes with regret that this wording still does not provide for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value as set out in the Convention, as it retains the concept of “the same nature”. It also emphasizes that the wording in the draft text of section 171 “of equal value of vocational skills and output” limits the application of equal remuneration to a comparison of the value of vocational skills and output. In this regard, the Committee recalls that in order to eliminate discrimination in relation to remuneration, which inevitably arises if the value of the work performed by men and women is not recognized free from any sexist bias, it is essential to compare the value of work in occupations in which the work may require different types of skills and also involve different levels of responsibility and conditions of work, but which are nevertheless of equal value overall. It emphasizes in this respect that the concept of equal “value” as set out in the Convention permits a broad scope of comparison, including “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, but which is nevertheless of equal value. This is crucial for the full application of the Convention as, in practice, men and women are often not engaged in the same jobs. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that, as effective application of the principle of the Convention is needed, where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment level will be insufficient (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 673, 675 and 698). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the future Labour Code gives full expression and full effect to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, without limitations that are contrary to the Convention, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3. Determination of rates of remuneration. Public service. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to explain in detail the methods and criteria used to determine pay levels following the introduction in 2015 of a new pay system in the public service, in order to ensure that jobs principally occupied by women have not been undervalued in relation to those mainly occupied by men. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the calculation of the pay of a State official takes into account the following elements: the basic pay, the reference indicative pay scale and the indicative scale of bonuses. These elements are uniform, calculated and paid pro rata based on the days worked, although the final remuneration may vary as it is based on collective results, the individual performance of the official and the payment of different bonuses and additional allowances. Noting that, according to the detailed explanations provided by the Government, one of the important components of final remuneration is based on the individual performance of officials, the Committee recalls that there is a significant difference between the concept of the evaluation of professional performance, which aims to evaluate the manner in which a particular worker carries out the job (output), and the concept of objective job evaluation, which evaluates the job (and not the worker) with a view to measuring the relative value of jobs that do not have the same content. The Committee also recalls that Article 3 of the Convention presupposes the use of appropriate methods for the objective evaluation of jobs. As women are very often engaged in different jobs to men, it is necessary to have a method of comparison through which it is possible to measure and compare the relative value of different jobs on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory factors (such as the required skills/qualifications, effort, responsibilities and working conditions) to prevent any sexist bias in their evaluation. Experience shows that skills that are often considered to be “female”, such as manual dexterity and those required in the caring professions, are frequently undervalued or even overlooked, in comparison with traditionally “male” skills, such as heavy lifting, which contributes to perpetuating the undervaluation of women’s jobs and to the widening of the pay gap between men and women (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraphs 695 to 701). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that the pay system for employees of the public service established in 2015 is free of gender bias. Noting the Government’s indication that the jobs predominantly held by women have not been undervalued in relation to those occupied by men, the Committee requests it to provide information on the methods used to evaluate and establish the classification of the various jobs in the public service and to provide the corresponding salary scales, disaggregated by sex.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.