Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Hungary (Ratification: 1961)

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislative developments. Equal opportunity plans. Further to its previous comments concerning the adoption of Act CXXV of 2003 (“Equal Treatment Act”), the Committee notes that the Act provides for a new section 70A of the Labour Code which recognizes the important role played by employers in promoting equal opportunity by providing that the employer may adopt an equal opportunities plan in cooperation with the trade union or works council concerned. Equal opportunity plans shall contain an analysis of the employment situation of groups of employees in a disadvantaged position, in particular: (a) women; (b) employees over 40 years of age; (c) the Roma; (d) employees with disabilities; and (e) employees raising two or more children below the age of 10, or single employees raising a child below the age of 10. This analysis should cover wages, working conditions, advancement, training, and benefits related to child-raising and parenthood. The plans shall also state the employer’s objectives in ensuring equal opportunities and the measures envisaged to achieve these objectives. Under section 36 of the Equal Treatment Act, public agencies employing more than 50 employees and legal persons with a majority state ownership must adopt an equal opportunities plan. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption and implementation of equal opportunity plans by private and public sector employers and the results achieved through such action.

2. Follow-up to the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the National Federation of Workers’ Councils (NFWC) concerning the application of Conventions Nos. 111 and 122 (GB.275/7/3, June 1999). The Committee recalls that this representation concerned allegations that legislation enacted by the Government reducing the personnel budget of institutes of higher education in 1995 had resulted in the dismissal of a disproportionate number of female lecturers and researchers. The Governing Body determined that there was insufficient information to permit it to reach any conclusion, but requested the Government to provide additional information to the Committee of Experts on the issues raised in the representation.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the number of teaching and non-teaching staff, disaggregated by sex, which were dismissed due to the 1995 austerity measures. In reply, the Government refers to previously submitted information concerning the gender composition of the total workforce dismissed, but did not indicate the gender composition of the dismissed teaching and non-teaching staff respectively. As the Committee is not yet in a position to appreciate whether the 1995 austerity measures had a disproportionate impact on female teaching staff, it would like to clarify its request to the Government concerning the additional information requested. The Committee, therefore, asks the Government to indicate the number of female and male teaching staff respectively, at the time the measures in question were taken, as well as the number of the teaching staff dismissed, again disaggregated by sex. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that in any future situation where public employment must be reduced due to budgetary constraints, an assessment of the impact of measures taken on the men and women in the sectors affected is made in order to avoid dismissals contrary to the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.