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

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Netherlands (Ratification: 1971)

Other comments on C100

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Professionals (VCP) received on 29 August 2019, as well as the additional observations of the CNV and the FNV received on 24 September 2020, which were also transmitted by the Government.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Work of equal value. Scope of comparison. The Committee previously noted that the equal treatment legislation only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company. The Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government, in its report, on any measures envisaged to extend the scope of comparison beyond the level of the enterprise, as requested in its last comment. It further notes that, in their observations, the FNV, the CNV and the VCP indicate that job rating systems are based per sector, and that there is no system that compares wages and function levels across different sectors. The Committee recalls that the application of the principle of the Convention should not be limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment, enterprise or sector but allow for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different places or enterprises, or between different employers or sectors. 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 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 676–679 and 697–698). Given the persistent gender segregation in certain sectors, including the education and health sector, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that when determining whether two jobs are of equal value the scope of comparison goes beyond the same enterprise or sector. It further encourages the Government to undertake awareness-raising activities and trainings to promote better understanding of the principle of the Convention by employers, workers and their respective organizations, as well as judges and law enforcement officers, in particular as regards the scope of comparison. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any unequal pay cases dealt with by labour inspectors, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights or the courts allowing for a comparison to be made between the situation of a female employee and a male employee beyond the level of the same enterprise.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination for 2014-2018 provided for a wider dissemination of the existing tools such as the “Remuneration guide (loonwijzer)” and “Quickscan”, as well as the development of special wage negotiation courses for women by workers’ organizations. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the efforts made, in cooperation with the social partners, to promote these tools in enterprises that have no job evaluation system. The Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government in that regard. It however notes the Government’s indication that several tools are available for workers and employers, as well as their respective organizations, such as the «equal pay checklist» from the Labour Foundation and the advices on equal pay available on the website of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (hereinafter “the Institute”). Furthermore, anyone who reasonably suspects a pay discrimination can request an opinion from the Institute which will investigate the situation. The Government adds that, pursuant to the Works Council Act, members of entrepreneur councils are able to play a strong role in putting this issue on the agenda and tackling it within their own company. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the proactive measures taken, in particular in cooperation with the social partners, to raise awareness about and promote the use of available tools for enterprises that have no job evaluation system. It further asks the Government to provide information on any assessment made on the impact of these tools, in particular in the determination of rates of remuneration free from gender bias, as well as on any other steps taken to develop and implement objective job evaluation methods and the results thereof.

Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. The Committee notes that the Government merely refers to the information provided on the above-mentioned available tools on equal pay The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to specifically monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of negotiations on flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales, so as to avoid these resulting in pay inequalities.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the supplementary pension schemes did not include any gender disparity and that the unequal treatment that existed in the past with regard to married women and part-time workers, no longer existed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that research carried out in 2016 showed that the expected pension to be achieved is higher for men that for women, mainly as a result of: (1) differences between men and women in labour participation; and (2) differences in the extent to which men and women work part-time. The Government states that it will pay explicit attention to the effects on the expected pension to be achieved for men and women in designing the renewal of its pension system. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it is preparing a renewal of the legislation for division of pension in case of divorce in order to achieve better gender equality, by ensuring that the partner who has accrued the least pension during the marital period, in practice mainly women, receives an independent entitlement to a pension. The Committee welcomes this information. Referring to its comments on the application to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No.111), the Committee notes that, in their observations, the FNV, the CNV and the VCP indicate that the gender pension gap is mainly caused by the fact that most women work part-time, thus requesting the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the time spent to care for children and relatives is more equally shared between men and women. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address gender disparity in pensions, including on any changes introduced to that end in the legislation, specifically focussing on married women who mainly accrued the least pension and part-time workers who are mostly women. It asks the Government to provide updated statistical information on the pension levels for men and women.