Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2016, Publicación: 106ª reunión CIT (2017)

Convenio sobre igualdad de remuneración, 1951 (núm. 100) - Finlandia (Ratificación : 1963)

Otros comentarios sobre C100

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations made by the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Confederation of Unions for Professionals and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA), the Finnish Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) attached to the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that according to the research project “Equal Pay, Equality and New Pay Systems” (SATU), the introduction of new pay systems resulted in a narrowing of the gender wage gap only among employees who earn the highest wages or those in the highest level positions and had a more prominent impact in the public and municipal sectors than the private sectors. The project “effectiveness of evaluating the demands of work, employee competencies and personal performance in Finland” (TAPAS) yielded information on the significance, applications and problems in the development of pay systems. The project produced a practical guide for equal pay, which compiles observations from workplaces in the project and provides instructions and recommendations on a general level. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that results of the TAPAS and SATU projects have been disseminated through various events. The Committee also notes the project of 2013–14 surveying the development needs of pay systems in private service industries in light of the Government’s indication that the private sector is lagging behind in the development of pay systems. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any further analysis of and follow-up to the findings of the SATU project. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the TAPAS guide’s impact and practical use. It also requests the Government to provide information on the findings of and any follow-up activities to the project surveying the development needs of pay systems in private service industries.

Public sector. With respect to the public sector the Committee notes that according to a working conditions survey by Statistics Finland, 47 per cent of municipal sector wage earners and 91 per cent of state wage earners reported that their pay system was based on job grade in 2013. Since 2003, the State has increased job grade evaluation in particular. According to AKAVA, new pay systems have succeeded in reducing pay gaps in the public sector, particularly in positions with the highest competence requirements, however, considerable differences remain between the wages of men and women working in middle management. From 2003 there has also been an increase in the use of job grade evaluation in the municipal sector from 28 per cent to 47 per cent. However, the situation has remained unchanged since 2008. The evaluation of personal performance was applied to 86 per cent of wage earners in the state sector and 33 per cent for the municipal sector in 2013. In the municipal sector, the introduction of new pay systems has slowed in recent years. According to the overall assessment of the Equal Pay Programme (2010–14), changing pay systems is often an extensive exercise and its preparations may take several collective agreement terms. It also requires financial investment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no comprehensive, reliable data on the number of wage earners in the scope of new pay systems. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing updated information on the progress made in the municipal sector and the impact of the competence and performance based pay systems on equal pay. It also asks the Government to provide information on how the lack of comprehensive, reliable data on the scope of the new pay systems is being addressed.

Collective agreements. The Government reports that the centralized framework agreement of the labour organizations (2011–13) included entries on gender equality and equal pay and that a tripartite report on the functioning and development needs of pay surveys was based on the framework agreement. The Committee however, notes that the industry specific collective agreements signed in 2011 in line with the centralised framework agreement did not include equal pay items of their own. Furthermore a centralised two-year Pact for Employment and Growth was signed in 2013. Industry-specific collective agreements following the centralised Pact for Employment and Growth signed in 2013 did not include separate equal pay items. The Government indicates that local pay arrangements have increased and their relative share of pay increases have grown. Furthermore, the information Committee on Cost and Income Developments, established by the Ministry of Finance, compiled a report in late 2013 on the promotion of equal pay through collective agreements, and has assessed the effects of agreement increases on the gender pay gap in 2010–12. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing concrete information on the impact of centralised and industry level collective agreements as well as the increase in local pay arrangements on equal pay. The Committee further requests the Government to provide a summary of the findings of the Committee on Cost and Income Development in their 2013 report. It also requests the Government to indicate any steps taken, in cooperation with the social partners, to promote the inclusion of separate equal pay items in industry-level collective agreements and the results achieved.

Enforcement. The Committee notes that the supervisory system for the Equality Act, comprising the Ombudsperson for Equality and the Anti-Discrimination and Equality Board, has been strengthened through the Act on the Amendment to the Act on Equality between Women and Men (1329/2014). The Government indicates that the independent status of the Ombudsperson for Equality has been reinforced and that there has been administrative restructuring. The Government also indicates that the number of cases handled by the Ombudsperson for Equality from 2012–14 varied between 152 and 211. About half of the cases related to discrimination in working life and many of these concerned equal pay. Cases concerned both basic pay and various kinds of bonuses and often concerned the effect of parental leave on wages. The Government also indicates that the supervision of pay discrimination reveals that the principle of equal pay is understood in a very narrow way in many workplaces in Finland. Accordingly, employers may argue that it is not possible to compare wages between employees placed at different pay levels. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the Ombudsperson for Equality has very limited resources for carrying out the task of monitoring the obligation of carrying out equality planning, and more resources are needed for this task. While noting the changes made to the supervisory system of the Equality Act, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the Ombudsperson’s position regarding the scope of comparison between jobs and the outcome of key cases concerning equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number, nature and outcome of cases concerning equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value decided by the competent administrative authorities and the courts. It also asks the Government to provide information on how it addresses the problem of the Ombudsperson’s lack of resources to monitor the obligation to carry out equality planning.