Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Bahamas (Ratification: 2001)

Article 1 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee recalls that section 6 of the Employment Act, 2001, does not give full expression to the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value as it unduly limits the scope of “work of equal value” and does not capture the broad definition of “remuneration” set out in the Convention. In particular, section 6 limits the application of work of equal value to work performed in the same establishment, and requiring substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility, and which is performed under similar working conditions. Section 6 of the Employment Act, 2001 refers to “rates of pay” which is defined pursuant to section 2(1), and appears to be narrower than the term “remuneration” set out in the Convention. The term “remuneration” is more broadly defined in section 2, but is not used in the context of section 6. The Committee notes that the Government again indicates generally that proposals for the amendment of the Employment Act are still under review. The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend section 6 of the Employment Act, in order to give full legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the legislation allows for the comparison not only of jobs in the same establishment and requiring substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, but also of work of an entirely different nature which is nevertheless of equal value, and provides for a broad definition of “remuneration” as set out in Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee encourages the Government to seek ILO technical assistance in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the information previously requested by the Committee is not currently available. The Committee recalls the obligation of taking effective measures in order to accomplish real progress in attaining the Convention’s objective of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The State cannot be passive in its approach to implementing the Convention, and application of the Convention is an ongoing process requiring a continual cycle of assessment, action, monitoring, further assessment and adjustment (see General Survey on fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 670–671). The Committee asks the Government to make every effort to obtain the necessary information to allow the Government and the Committee to assess progress in implementing the Convention, and hopes that the Government will be in a position to address all the points in its previous direct request which reads as follows:

Article 2. Determining rates of remuneration. Noting that the requested information has not been received, the Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide information in its next report on the manner in which remuneration is determined in the civil service and the public sector, including copies of wage scales and information on the method used to establish them.

Article 3. Objective evaluation of jobs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it would provide information on the industrial agreements and employment policies of enterprises that provide for objective appraisal of jobs. Unfortunately such information has not been received and the Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will include information on and examples of agreements and policies providing for job evaluation as well as information on any measures taken or envisaged to promote the development and use of objective job evaluation systems on the basis of the work performed in the public and the private sectors.

Article 4. Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report which seems to indicate that collective agreements do not contain provisions on equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to include information in its next report on the measures taken by employers’ and workers’ organizations to achieve equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

Parts III and IV of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there is full compliance with the equal remuneration provisions of the Employment Act and the principle of the Convention, and that no court decisions have been issued relating to the application of this principle. The Committee must recall that the absence of complaints does not necessarily indicate an absence of violations. It may rather indicate a lack of understanding of the principle by the labour inspectorate, as well as by workers and employers, or a lack of accessible complaints procedures. The Committee hopes that the Government will take measures to improve the capacity of labour inspectors to detect and address unequal pay for work of equal value, and to ensure that workers are apprised of their right to equal pay for work of equal value and of the dispute resolution mechanisms available. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Part V of the report form. Practical application and statistics. The Committee notes the statistics of 2005 on the “employed persons in the hotel industry by occupation, sex, average hours worked and average wage per week – All Bahamas”, attached to the Government’s report, indicating that pay differentials exist between men and women in almost all occupations and that women are more often than men concentrated in the lower paid occupations. The weekly wage gap between men and women is particularly striking in the higher category of senior officials and managers. While men and women are more or less equally distributed in this occupational category, the gender gap in weekly wages is about 31.3 per cent. [...] The Committee asks the Government to take steps to determine the underlying reasons for these wage differentials between men and women, and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to address these in the various occupations, particularly in the higher level occupational category of senior officials and managers. The Government is also requested to continue to provide statistical information on the earnings of men and women in the different economic sectors and occupations in the public and as well as in the private sectors.