Foreword
The principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value is enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organization (ILO). It is reaffirmed by Convention No. 100, supplemented by Recommendation No. 90, adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1951. These two instruments call on member states which have ratified the Convention to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration in both the public and private sectors.
The Convention provides for considerable flexibility in the method of applying this principle. In achieving the objective of equal remuneration for men and women, states have a free choice of legal, economic and institutional measures, provided that they do not circumvent their obligations on the pretext, for example, of the financial cost of the operation or by arguing that the fixing of wages does not fall within their competence.
The flexibility of the standard established by the ILO has meant that the range of approaches used to ensure equal treatment between men and women as regards remuneration is very wide. Progress in reducing wage differences between men and women has been achieved in many countries which have ratified the Convention in question (a total of 137). However, in general, progress has been slow and has varied in scope. This might be explained by several factors, including differences in the approaches used, the size and nature of the wage differences between men and women, the position of women in the labour market, the social policies applied, the institutional system in force (bargaining and wage-fixing methods). In some cases, slow progress may be due to the restrictive interpretation of the international labour standards, which several countries have opted for, or because the scope of public intervention is limited to the public sector.
As can be seen from the review below, national legislations use different definitions to establish the scope of comparison between work by men and women: the same work, equal work, work of equal value, work of equal or equivalent value, work of a similar nature. These concepts do not have the same legal meaning and therefore the scope of the law may be restricted by the definition used. In the spirit of Convention No. 100, the meaning goes beyond the rference to identical or similar work. It takes into account the value of work carried out by men and women workers. The adoption of a broad definition in line with the Convention is an indispensable condition for any serious treatment of the question of wage discrimination. Thus, countries which have adopted a restricted definition (similar work and equal work respectively), have acted by removing part of the discrimination from the scope of action by the public authorities in order to resolve such discrimination. On the other hand, countries which have opted for a broader definition in compliance with the provisions of the Convention (work for equal value) -- within the scope of a wider approach which aims at overcoming all sources of gender inequality (viz., in the areas of education, training, conditions of work, etc.) -- seem to have achieved better results.
Equally important is the enforcement machinery. Indeed, legislation would remain ineffective if it were not underpinned by an appropriate enforcement machinery made up of bodies and institutions empowered with the necessary financial and human resources.
Finally, the involvement of the social partners as well as all the other actors concerned (womens associations) is also very important if we want the legislation on equal remuneration to be effective.
This volume describes the approaches followed by a group of 12 countries in the implementation of the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for a work of equal value. It is hoped that this attempts will throw some light on how this topical issue is dealt with in different social and institutional contexts.
It has been prepared by Ms. Paula Määttä, an intern with the Labour law and labour relations Branch, and edited at the final stage by Dr. Paul Roth.
May 1998 Youcef Ghellab, Labour Law and Labour Relations Branch.