Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Sweden (Ratification: 1962)

The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in its report and attached documentation. It also notes the comments furnished by the Swedish Employers' Confederation (SAF), the Federation of Swedish County Councils and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO).

1. The Committee recalls that under the provisions of the Equal Opportunities Act, 1991, plans aimed at promoting equality, which are to be drawn up each year by employers of more than 9 employees, are to contain a summary of the measures needed at the workplace in a number of specified areas and are to indicate which of those measures the employer intends to commence or implement during the coming year. In 1994, a new provision concerning equal pay was introduced into the Act to require employers to review annually the existence of pay differentials between men and women, both in different types of work and for different categories of employees (section 9a). An outline of these findings and the measures warranted by the review are also to be included in the equality plans (section 11). The Committee also notes from the comments of the SAF that if and when the results of the pay survey indicate a need for a more detailed study and analysis, the employer is free to decide the details of how such a study should be performed, after consulting the workers' representatives. The SAF also wishes to stress that, under the Act, job evaluation is not required to survey pay differentials, to correct imbalances in wages between the sexes or to create a wage structure free of discrimination. The SAF states that, based on its experience, generalized job evaluation is not a suitable measure to meet the future needs of a good pay structure.

2. The Committee notes that the Government and, more particularly, the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman has, on the contrary, encouraged this tool among the strategies designed to reduce wage gaps based on the sex of the worker and, in this regard, has published handbooks on wage discrimination and job evaluation which are intended to serve as practical guidance for employers and trade unions. Noting the action taken by the Ombudsman regarding the presentation of equality plans by employers under the Act, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide such information on the implementation of sections 9a and 11 of the Act.

3. The Committee notes with interest that, in response to Parliament's call for special action to be taken in regard to wage discrimination involving work of equal value, the increased activities of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman have resulted in the number of complaints by individuals rising from about 30 in 1993 to about 700 in 1996, a figure which includes complaints filed by groups of female employees, especially in the health sector. The Committee notes, in this regard, the detailed information furnished by the Government on the two cases concerning equal pay for work of equal value that the Ombudsman has taken to the Labour Court. It would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide such information, particularly on the outcome of the Labour Court cases

4. The Committee also notes with interest that in 1994, the Work Environment Fund was commissioned by the Government to "set aside funding for research, development and knowledge dissemination on the subjects of wage formation, job valuation and pay differentials between women and men". This assignment, which was organized under a special research and development programme, "Wage Formation and Job Valuation" was transferred to the Working Life Institute in 1995 and will continue through 1997. The Committee looks forward to receiving information on the work undertaken in this programme.

5. The Committee notes the report of Statistics Sweden analysing the use of official pay statistics to assess equality of opportunity. This report states that labour market statistics should provide a basis for describing various differences and for analysing different types of discrimination and should be based on job variables (for which a detailed job classification is important), personal variables (such as age, sex, education, seniority ) and corporate variables (type of business, sector, size of the establishment etc.). Commenting on this report, the Federation of County Councils points to the complexity of reporting and analysing gender statistics. The Federation states that although in county councils women earn, on average, 74 per cent of men's earnings, women earn more in ten of 19 groups. According to the Federation, where women earn less than men, it is a question of age; at the lower ages, the situation is more equal. The Committee observes that the Federation does not explain why the wage gap between men and women should widen as women age, since in theory they should benefit equally with men from increased experience and seniority. The Federation's own statistical analyses indicate, however, that occupations dominated by women are, in general, paid less than those of men. The LO has addressed other difficulties faced in securing equal remuneration. It notes that the issue of indirect discrimination is a concept that is difficult to handle in litigation. In addition, the LO stresses the difficulty of gaining access to all information in a discrimination case, as most of the information required is in the hands of the employer; the LO is concerned to have this issue better clarified and implemented in the national legislation. The Committee observes that it has often referred to these various matters, both in the comments addressed to governments on the application of the Convention and in its general surveys on the Convention. The problem of lacking access to information necessary for equal pay claims and the difficulties posed by indirect discrimination are, to some extent, alleviated by the reversal of the burden of proof. Moreover, as the Committee has stated on many occasions, and most recently in its 1996 Special Survey on Equality in Employment and Occupation (paragraph 305), the creation of a general context of equality is necessary if the impediments to equality are to be overcome and if real and sustained progress is to be made.