Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1998, Publicación: 87ª reunión CIT (1999)

Convenio sobre igualdad de remuneración, 1951 (núm. 100) - Países Bajos (Ratificación : 1971)

1. The Committee notes the entry into force of the "Barber Directive" (96/97/EC of the Council of the European Union), which amends Directive 86/378/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. Following the enactment of the Barber Directive, the Committee notes with interest the amendment of the Equal Opportunities Act in March 1998 which prohibited discrimination between men and women in regard to the categories of persons eligible for pension provisions, the details of such provisions, and the implementation of pension schemes (section 12(b)). The Committee further notes the amendment of section 7:646 of the Civil Code which includes payments and entitlements under pension schemes as terms of employment. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these amendments, including any decisions handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission.

2. With reference to the entry into force on 1 November 1996 of the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act, the Committee notes that, since then, the Equal Treatment Commission has ruled on 13 petitions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to any violations and to continue providing information on the practical application of the Act. The Committee also notes that the Labour Inspectorate is preparing a study on the terms of employment of part-time workers in collective agreements. Noting that this is a repeat of a study undertaken in 1991, which showed that the legal status of part-time workers was not always equal to that of full-time workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with the findings and recommendations contained in the study.

3. With reference to the entry into force on 1 September 1994 of the Equal Treatment Act, the Committee notes the large rise in the number of petitions submitted to the Equal Treatment Commission (from 29 in 1994 to 509 in 1997) and that a significant percentage of the petitions claimed sex discrimination. It further notes from the Government's report the slight decline in 1997 (from 40.7 per cent in 1996 to 35.2 per cent in 1997) which, according to the Equal Treatment Commission's 1997 annual report, could probably be attributed to the enactment of legislation which enables claims to be based directly on new grounds (working hours, marital status) rather than on grounds of indirect discrimination under the Equal Treatment Act of 1994. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the number and types of petitions submitted and their outcome. The Committee notes with interest the information on Equal Treatment Commission Case 97-54, in which it found that a salary-scale system applied by the Minister of Education, which was based only on paid working experience and the last salary earned, while ignoring criteria such as education and unpaid experience relevant to the job, amounted to a form of indirect discrimination against women. It also notes that this decision has been taken into consideration in the regular talks between the Minister of Education and the unions representing teachers on the criteria to be used in determining the salaries of women returning to work. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information on any agreements reached between the Minister and the unions on criteria to be applied in establishing salary scales and on any measures taken or envisaged to implement the agreement.

4. Further to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that, in December 1995, a study was completed on the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunities Act. It notes that, on the basis of the findings of the study, a further study is to be conducted in 1998 to investigate the possibilities of streamlining regulations regarding equal treatment which are presently contained in a number of different Acts. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the findings and recommendations of the study.

5. The Committee notes with interest that sections 7 and 11 of the Equal Opportunities Act are to be amended so as to broaden the criteria on which the comparison is to be based for determining "work of equal value" (i.e. "someone working in the same undertaking", whereby "undertaking" is defined and interpreted narrowly), and that the limitation period for equal pay claims, which now stands at two years, will be brought in line with the generally applicable limitation period for pay claims laid down in the Civil Code. Noting that an amendment to widen the basis of comparison beyond the enterprise would promote the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with copies of the amendments, once adopted. Furthermore, the Committee notes that additional legislative amendments will be examined upon completion of the evaluation of the Equal Treatment Act planned for 1999. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the findings and recommendations of the evaluation, including information on measures taken or envisaged to implement the recommendations.

6. The Committee notes the Government's statement that, so far, the Equal Treatment Commission has not handed down any decisions on the question of whether the job evaluation system employed in the health-care sector is in accordance with the equality legislation, and requests the Government to provide it with relevant information once it becomes available.

7. Further to its previous direct request, the Committee notes with interest the continued initiative by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs to examine regularly the extent to which the wage gap between men and women can be explained by differences in personal circumstances and jobs. It notes that the 1996 study showed that the average gross hourly pay rate for women aged 23 and over was 24 per cent lower than for men. The study showed that, after a regression analysis was undertaken taking into account individual and job-related factors, there was still a difference of 7 per cent in pay that could not be accounted for and could therefore, at least partly, be ascribed to sex discrimination. The Committee, noting that the unadjusted difference in pay between men and women aged 23 and over was 26 per cent in 1993 as compared to 24 per cent in 1996, while the adjusted difference fell from 9 per cent in 1993 to 7 per cent in 1996, requests the Government to continue, in future reports, to indicate the results of such reviews. Furthermore, noting the Government's statement that the adjusted 7 per cent difference in pay between men and women may partly be due to the fact that job evaluation systems are not gender-neutral, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with information on the findings and recommendations arising from the study on job evaluation schemes undertaken in 1998.