Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Japan (Ratification: 1967)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Assessment of the gender pay gap. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the 2012 Basic Survey on Wage Structure (BSWS), the general disparity in hourly scheduled cash earnings between full-time male and female workers has been narrowed to 27.8 per cent in 2012 (28.1 per cent in 2011). Disparities in wages by industry range from 40.6 per cent in finance and insurance to 16.6 per cent in “other” services. The Committee notes that the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) asserts that the BSWS does not cover non regular workers, of whom 68.3 per cent are women. The JTUC–RENGO indicates that, according to a 2012 report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the gender pay gap in Japan is 29 per cent (40 per cent among workers who are 40 years old or more and 61 per cent among workers with children). The Committee also notes that no statistical data has been provided on the public sector. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information on the gender wage gap both in the public and the private sectors, including statistics covering non-regular workers.

Indirect discrimination. The Committee recalls that pursuant to the Enforcement Regulations under the Equal Employment Opportunity Law (EEOL), indirect discrimination is prohibited only in three circumstances. In this regard, it notes the Government’s indication that discussions will continue on the revision of the EEOL, including indirect discrimination, and that as of May 2013, no court case had found indirect discrimination. The Committee notes the JTUC RENGO’s indication that, during the meetings of the Employment Equality Subcommittee of the Labour Policy Council of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, it insisted on the need to clarify legally the concept of indirect discrimination; several requirements should be identified as being indirect discrimination, including being the head of the household to receive family benefits. The Committee was made aware of the amendment of the Enforcement Regulations under the EEOL on 24 December 2013, which seems to extend the scope of the prohibition of indirect discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the amendment to the Enforcement Regulations under the EEOL and its impact on closing the gender pay gap, and to indicate how it ensures that there is effective protection against all forms of indirect discrimination regarding remuneration. The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether any consideration is being given to prohibiting indirect discrimination with respect to social security benefits.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, even in cases where a wage system based on job evaluation is adopted, enterprises combine this system with a wage system based on the individual ability to perform the job. According to the Government, objective job evaluation in order to determine wages is not considered to fit the wage system in Japan. The Government acknowledges however that in some cases, the system is insufficiently designed to avoid ambiguity with respect to the criteria for promotion and staff evaluation, and does not always prevent potential gender bias, when implemented. In this respect, the Government indicates that the Manual on implementing job analysis and job evaluation issued in 2010 was using a simple comparison method, and that the Guidelines for job evaluation by breakdown method were published in 2012 to enable the comparison between the duties of part-time workers and regular workers. An introduction to job analysis and job evaluation in the guidelines is being encouraged in seminars for employers and through information posted on the Internet. The Committee notes however that the JTUC–RENGO stresses that in the guidelines, the evaluation aims at measuring the worker’s individual abilities and is not based on objective factors, including job duties and working conditions. According to the organization, research on and development of an objective and gender neutral job evaluation method is therefore urgently needed in the current process of reviewing the EEOL. The Zensekiyu Showa–Shell Labour Union also insists that the issue of gender neutral and objective job evaluation is often confused with the evaluation of the ordinary skills of workers, even in the policy debate among employers’ and employees’ organizations, and calls for more information and training on this issue. Recalling that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this respect, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote and develop objective job evaluation, both in the private and the public sectors, so as to ensure the possibility of comparing remunerations beyond the same or substantially the same jobs, including information on awareness-raising activities among workers, employers and their organizations and the public in general.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 132,829 regular inspections were conducted by the Labour Standards Authority in 2011, and only two violations of section 4 of the Labour Standards Law were reported. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the nature of the violations, the content of the guidance provided and the correctional action ordered by labour standards inspectors in cases of violation of section 4 of the Labour Standards Law. It also once again asks the Government to provide information on the labour inspectorate, especially the concrete methodologies and the guidance provided to labour standards inspectors to enable them to identify instances of wage discrimination where men and women are engaged in jobs which are of a different nature, but which are nonetheless of equal value.