Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Ireland (Ratification: 1974)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, including statistical information and attached documentation.

1. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the October 2000 report of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), "How Unequal?" the economy-wide female-male earnings gap has progressively decreased. In 1997, women’s average hourly earnings were 84.5 per cent of men’s, compared with 80.1 per cent in 1987. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to keep it informed regarding progress achieved in reducing the remuneration gap in Ireland.

2. The Committee notes the Government’s indications regarding the Employment Equality Act, 1998 ("the Act"), which was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 18 June 1998, repealing the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Committee notes that, as the Act came into force on 18 October 1999, no decisions had been issued concerning equal pay claims brought under the Act as at the date of the Government’s report. Noting that the Office of Director of Equality Investigations is the first instance of redress under the Act, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information in its next report regarding the number of equal pay cases referred to the Office during the reporting period, the action taken and the outcome. Please also indicate whether any cases brought under the Act have been appealed to the labour courts and supply copies of any such decisions once they become final. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision on 15 May 1997, which held that certain portions of the 1997 version of the Employment Equality Act were unconstitutional.

3. Article 1(a) of the Convention. Referring to its earlier comments regarding section 2(1) of the Act, which defines remuneration as excluding pension rights, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it intends to amend the Act in due course to bring it into conformity as far as practicable with Part VII of the Pensions Act, 1990. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that Part VII of the Pensions Act, including section 69(1) was amended in 1997 to bring its provisions fully into line with Directive 96/97/EC and Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty of Rome. In this context, the Committee notes section 4 of the European Communities (Occupational Benefits Schemes) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 286 of 1997), amending section 69 of the Pensions Act, 1990 to provide that, in determining whether an occupational benefit scheme complies with the principle of equal treatment, account shall not be taken of differences on the basis of sex in the levels of contributions made by the employer or the amount or value of benefits under the circumstances specified in that provision. The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 17 of the General Survey on equal remuneration, 1986, which provides that all allowances paid under occupational social security schemes financed by the undertaking or industry concerned are part of remuneration in the undertaking and form part of the elements making up wages, in respect of which there should be no discrimination based on sex. Accordingly, the Committee expresses the hope that section 2(1) of the Act will shortly be amended to bring it into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, and that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report that measures to that end have been taken.

4. Article 1(b) Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that the scope of comparison provided for in the Act is restricted to employees performing "like work" (exercising the same level of skill, mental or physical effort and responsibility and working under the same conditions) for the same or an associated employer (section 19(1) of the Act). In this regard, the Committee notes the findings of the ESRI report that, more than two decades after the enactment of equal pay legislation, the incidence of unequal pay for the same jobs is likely to be low and that male-female earnings differentials in both the public and private sectors are more likely to arise due to the distribution of men and women across jobs (occupational segregation) than because of pay differences between men and women doing the same jobs (cf. How Unequal?, pages 61-62). In its report, the ESRI observes that the restriction of the Act to comparisons within the same establishment severely limits its capacity to reduce wage differentials that arise through occupational segregation. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government regarding cases interpreting the "like work" requirement (citing the European Commission publication Equality in Law between Men and Women in the European Community: Ireland). It notes the indications contained in the publication that "in theory, it might be possible to make cross-industry comparisons in the very limited circumstances where the same (or associated) employer has employees in different industries, who perform like work, in the same place. However, in practice no such cases have arisen". In this context, the Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the broader scope of comparison contemplated by the Convention, which should be "as wide as allowed at the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are coordinated" (see General Survey on equal remuneration, ILO, 1986, paragraph 22). The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken in law and practice to ensure the effective application of the provisions of the Convention.

5. The Committee notes that, in the absence of any decisions issued to date interpreting sections 7(1)(a)-(c) and 19(3) of the Act regarding the definition of "like work", the Government has supplied information on the manner in which the (similar) definition of "like work" contained in section 3 of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 was applied in practice. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information, including summaries or copies of judicial and administrative decisions interpreting sections 7(1)(a)-(c) and 19(3) of the Act in its future reports.

6. Article 3. The Committee had previously noted that the Act appears to contemplate the objective appraisal of jobs on the basis of the work to be performed, referring to a comparison between jobs "on the basis of skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions" (section 7(1)(c)) and a comparison between employees to determine whether they have "the same or reasonably comparable terms and conditions of employment" (section 19(3)). The Committee reiterates its request that the Government supply information on the measures taken or contemplated to develop and promote the objective appraisal of jobs within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention and refers the Government to paragraphs 138-152 of its 1986 General Survey on equal remuneration.

7. Article 4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a number of mechanisms are in place which provide for cooperation between employers’ and workers’ organizations in the area of equality, including in the programme for prosperity and fairness, negotiated with the social partners, which provides for the establishment of a consultative group to oversee the finalization of the ESRI report on male/female wage differentials, consider its recommendations and develop proposals for action to address issues identified in the ESRI report for consideration by the Government. The Committee asks the Government to continue to keep it informed regarding the development and implementation of these and other relevant measures taken in cooperation with the social partners.

8. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation regarding the establishment, structure and operation of the Equality Authority and the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. It notes that the Board of the Equality Authority, which determines the agency’s policies, includes representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Noting the measures contemplated in the Strategic Plan 2000-02 of the Equality Authority, the Committee asks the Government to supply information in its next report on the continuing activities of the agency. It particularly notes the stated objective of the Equality Authority to reinforce casework activity through, inter alia, a research programme that identifies and documents inequality, analyses its root causes and designs strategies to address inequality.

9. The Committee notes the 1999 annual report of the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations as well as information supplied by the Government regarding the number of equal pay cases presented from 1976 to 30 May 2000. However, the Committee notes that the figures do not distinguish between cases submitted under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and the 1998 Act. Accordingly, the Committee would appreciate receiving updated information on this point, indicating the outcome of any cases still pending under the earlier legislation as well as the number of cases brought under the new Act during the reporting period, the action taken and the outcomes.