Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2009, Publicación: 99ª reunión CIT (2010)

Convenio sobre igualdad de remuneración, 1951 (núm. 100) - Honduras (Ratificación : 1956)

The Committee recalls that on 22 May 2008 it received a communication from the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) providing information on the questions raised by the Committee and on the action carried out by the COHEP to contribute to the application of the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. Work of equal value. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided information on the amendment of section 44 of the Equal Opportunities for Women Act (LIOM), which the Committee considers to be inadequate to give effect to the principle of the Convention as it establishes the requirement of equal wages for equal work. The Committee further notes that on 25 November 2008 Regulations were adopted under the LIOM, but that section 20(8) of the Regulations does not give expression in law to the concept of “work of equal value”. However, the Committee notes that the second Gender Equality and Equity Plan 2008–15 recognizes as one of the challenges the “full achievement of equal remuneration for women and men for equal work or work of equal value”. The Committee once again asks the Government to give full legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and asks the Government to provide specific information on the progress achieved in amending section 44 of the LIOM and section 20(8) of its Regulations.

Articles 2 and 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes that in relation to the objective evaluation of jobs, the Government refers only to evaluations relating to those seeking jobs, and not evaluations of jobs in themselves. The Committee further notes the indication by COHEP in its communication that it is not aware of public or private initiatives undertaken for the purpose of the objective evaluation of jobs. The Committee also notes COHEP’s concern regarding the absence of a job classification system for the civil service, in accordance with sections 12 to 15 of the Civil Service Act, and their indication that there are significant wage disparities in the public sector. According to COHEP, the absence of a harmonized national classification of occupations with tripartite approval makes it difficult to undertake comparisons between jobs and it is not feasible to establish a comparison of the value of the various tasks. The Committee notes that, according to COHEP, at the end of 2006, an inter-institutional working group was established, composed of representatives of the Secretariat of State for the Labour and Social Security Offices, the National Institute of Statistics, the National Institute of Vocational Training, the Secretariat of State for the Education Office, the Honduran Export Processing Association (AHM) and COHEP, to undertake the revision and harmonization of existing classifications.

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to ensure progress is made in developing a national classification system, based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria free from gender bias. The Government is also asked to provide specific information on the progress made in formulating a job classification system for the civil service, and to undertake an examination of the  nature and extent of any wage disparities between men and women in the public sector. Please also provide information on the progress made by the inter-institutional working group to undertake the revision and harmonization of existing classifications.

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