Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1996, Publicación: 85ª reunión CIT (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

1. In previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, given the principle of autonomy of collective bargaining in the country, neither the public authorities nor the legislative bodies intervened in negotiations but that the legality of provisions in collective agreements could be challenged by the parties in individual litigation. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that, in a resolution of 14 September 1994, the Supreme Court examined, for the first time, the question of indirect discrimination against women and the resulting legal consequences. The matter concerned a collective agreement which contained provision for two categories of temporary workers whereby the determining criterion for classification in the higher category was "physical capability". The Supreme Court established that this criterion was excessively to the advantage of men. As there was no classification criterion based on capacities more typical of women workers (such as manual dexterity), the Court concluded that this lack of balance in the assessment criteria constituted indirect discrimination against physically less capable women and was thus an infringement of section 2(2) of the Equality of Treatment Act, 1979, as amended. The relevant wage category provision of the agreement was consequently ruled to be partially invalid. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Act.

2. The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government on other matters.