Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

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

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Regarding the problem of applying the equal pay principle in flexible labour relations, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which legislation is interpreted so as to apply to workers in flexible employment relationships, such as flexible hours of work. It notes the information in the Government's report on the situation of workers with flexible employment relationships and its statements according to which (1) no cases of unequal remuneration related to flexible labour relationships have been submitted to a committee or court; (2) flexible employment relations in the central Government and the other levels of public employment are relatively rare; and (3) these relationships, when they exist, are subject to the relevant public service regulations. Noting the Government's statement that a survey is currently under way into the effectiveness of equal treatment legislation, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report any cases of workers with flexible employment relationships suffering unequal pay. It would also appreciate receiving a copy of the findings of the said survey.

2. The Committee had previously commented on the possibility of extending the comparison between wages of women in undertakings where there was no possibility for comparison between women and men doing work of equal value, with wages of men in similar undertakings. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the provision in the Equal Treatment Act, 1989, prescribing equal pay for men and women doing almost the same work, allows for such a comparison and that the Supreme Court, in a 1987 decision, had relied on this. It also notes with interest the Government's statement that its policy is to reduce situations where there are no possibilities for comparison by promoting the removal of barriers between male and female occupations and posts, as well as its investigations into whether the job ranking systems used in hospitals and the commercial services sector are free from sex discrimination elements (which showed that features of male posts are more and better represented than those of womens' posts and that women are rarely involved in the introduction and implementation of job ranking). It also notes that, according to the Government, the necessity of promoting comparisons between similar undertakings does not occur in the central Government as the same job ranking system applies across the board there.

The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on how the possibility of promoting equal remuneration by comparing men's and women's wages in similar undertakings is ensured under the present legislation (for example, in decisions of the Commission for Equal Treatment of Men and Women in Employment or of the courts) and on any steps taken to encourage the use of the said comparisons to promote equal remuneration between the sexes. It would also like to receive information on the outcome of the joint follow-up study for eliminating possible elements of sexual discrimination in hospitals, which the parties to the collective labour agreements in this sector intend to carry out.

3. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on certain other points.