Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 100) sur l'égalité de rémunération, 1951 - Azerbaïdjan (Ratification: 1992)

Autre commentaire sur C100

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Previous comment

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Determination of remuneration and objective job evaluation. The Committee notes that, once again, the Government’s report does not reply to its request for information on the method used to determine the wage categories in the private sector. It notes that the Government repeats its statement that the work performed is assigned to the appropriate wage level using the unified pay scale handbook approved by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. The Government adds, without going into detail, that the systems of remuneration are based on the worker’s qualifications and the complexity of the work, regardless of the worker’s gender. Once again, the Committee refers to paragraphs 695 and 696 of its General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, and recalls the need to examine the respective tasks involved, undertaken on the basis of entirely objective and non-discriminatory criteria to avoid the assessment being tainted by gender bias. The Committee, therefore, once again requests the Government to: (i) describe in detail the method used to objectively determine the wage categories on the basis of the tasks performed, including the criteria used to that end; and (ii) indicate how it is ensured that the wage and qualifications guides (“unified pay scale handbook”) of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection are established on the basis of entirely objective and non-discriminatory criteria free from gender bias, and to provide a copy of these guides.

Equal remuneration in the public sector. The Committee previously noted that, in 2015, the average monthly nominal wages of women represented only 59.46 per cent of those of men, in the public sector. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that in 2017, 28.9 per cent of the civil servants were women (only 1 percentage point increase since 2014). It notes the Government’s indication that the remuneration of workers in education, healthcare and culture, set on the basis of the “unified pay scale handbook”, is not considered high in comparison to other areas, and that women are predominantly employed in these areas, instead of areas with higher pay. The Committee notes however that the Government does not provide information on the remuneration levels of men and women in the public sector, nor does it provide information on any measures taken to address the gender pay gap in the public sector and its underlying causes, in order to ensure that remuneration for civil servants and state employees is determined in accordance with the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, on the basis of criteria free from gender bias. The Committee therefore asks the Government to: (i) take measures to address the gender pay gap in the public sector and its underlying causes such as occupational gender segregation and lower pay in sectors where women civil servants predominate (education, healthcare and culture); (ii) provide information on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard; and (iii) provide statistics disaggregated by sex on the distribution of men and women civil servants in the different grades, indicating the corresponding remuneration levels.

Article 4. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement regarding the conclusion of the tripartite collective agreement for 2018-2019, in particular section 2.2.2 that envisages measures to eliminate discrimination in respect of pay for the work that is identically performed by women and men. It notes however that no information is provided on the specific measures taken or envisaged, in practice, to give effect to the principle of the Convention. It also points out that the tripartite collective agreement does not reflect the principle of the Convention but refers to “work that is identically performed by women and men”. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on: (i) the content of collective agreements on equal pay issues and the manner in which they are implemented; and (ii) the content and impact of any activities carried out, in cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, to give effect in practice to the principle of the Convention.

Awareness raising and enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that, over the past ten years, the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) did not find any case of gender-based discrimination. The Committee recalls that, where no cases or complaints, or very few, are being lodged, this is likely to indicate a lack of an appropriate legal framework, lack of awareness of rights, lack of confidence in or absence of practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. The fear of reprisals or victimization is a particular concern in the case of migrant workers. The lack of complaints or cases could also indicate that the system of recording violations is insufficiently developed (see the 2012 General Survey paragraph 870). The Committee requests the Government to: (i) take measures to enhance the capacity of labour inspectors, judges, as well as workers, employers and their organizations regarding the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value through training and awareness raising activities; (ii) examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions allow, in practice, claims to be brought successfully; and (ii) to provide information on any activities undertaken or envisaged to this effect. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number, nature and outcome of cases of discrimination on equal remuneration, in both the private and public sectors, dealt with by the courts and the State Labour Inspectorate.