Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

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

Comparing work of equal value. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that under Dutch law the comparison of wages is based on the wage received by an employee of the opposite sex for work of equal value in the company that employs the employee in whose interest the wage comparison is being made, or in the absence of such basis for comparison, on the wage earned by someone of the opposite sex for work of virtually equal value in said company. The Committee recalls that the application of the Convention’s principle is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to enable the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value to be implemented beyond the level of the same company or enterprise.

Promotion of the principle through objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the use and promotion of the various tools, such as Quickscan equal pay, the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration and the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual, developed with a view to assisting employers to carry out objective job evaluation. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual is based on a comparison of “male positions” and “female positions” which are “more or less comparable”. The Committee recalls its 2006 general observation and points out that the concept of equal value permits a broad scope of comparison, and “also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, which is nevertheless of equal value …”. The Committee asks the Government to clarify whether the meaning of “more or less comparable” would allow a comparison of jobs which involve entirely different types of qualifications, skills, responsibilities or working conditions, but which are nevertheless of equal value. The Committee also reiterates its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that companies that do not have a job evaluation system use objective criteria for determining pay free from gender bias.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes.  The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need for corrective action to compensate women who had previously been excluded from participating in pension schemes, and to address the limited participation of women in supplementary pension schemes due to exclusion of certain job categories (so-called white spots). Noting that the research on the number of employees without occupational pension provision in 2006, as well as on the so-called white spots in occupational pensions, has been delayed, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide the results of the studies in its next report, as well as on the measures taken to address these issues.

Pay structures. Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. With regard to measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations made by the study group “Equal Pay Works!” to reduce remuneration differences between men and women due to flexible pay systems and long pay scales, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Labour Foundation and the Council for Public Sector Personnel Policy have been asked to report on their achievements in this regard in October 2008, and to indicate how the problem should be addressed. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the progress made with respect to the measures taken to avoid flexible pay systems and long pay scales resulting in pay inequalities between men and women, and the efforts made to ensure that performance-related pay systems are based on objective criteria free from gender bias.