Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Czechia (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Legislative developments. The Committee notes that the new Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006, as amended by Act No. 585/2006) which entered into force on 1 January 2007, replaced Act No. 1/1992 on wages and Act No. 143/1992 on salaries which both provided that men and women shall receive equal wages or salary for equal work and for work of equal value. Under the new Labour Code the employer must ensure equal treatment for all employees and comply with the prohibition of discrimination (section 13(2)(b)) and the principle of equal pay (wage, salary or other monetary benefits and benefits of monetary value) and, where appropriate, other remuneration for equal work and for work of equal value. Under section 16(1), employers shall safeguard equal treatment for all employees as regards, amongst others, remuneration for work and other emoluments in cash and in kind (of monetary value). Section 110(1) provides that all employees employed by one employer are entitled to receive equal wage, salary or remuneration for the same (equal) work or for work to which equal value has been attributed. The meaning of “the same (equal) work or work to which equal value has been attributed” is further defined on the basis of criteria such as complexity, responsibility, strenuousness, working conditions and working efficiency. Noting that section 110 of the new Labour Code provides equal remuneration for work of equal value more broadly rather than for men and women more specifically, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on its practical application and its impact on reducing the gender pay gap. In this regard, please provide information on the specific activities carried out by the labour inspectorate to monitor the legislation and to indicate the number, nature and outcomes of cases concerning equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value brought before the courts.

Scope of comparison. The Committee notes that the new Labour Code continues to limit the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value to employees employed by one employer. The Committee recalls its general observation of 2006 in which it noted that the application of the Convention’s principle is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise and that it allows for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different enterprises or between different employers. Where women are heavily concentrated in certain sectors of activities or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison may be insufficient at the level of the establishment. In this regard, the Committee notes the comments made by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions stating that female-dominated jobs tend to be lower paid in comparison with similar positions which are not female dominated. The Committee considers that increased attention to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, through cross-sectoral approaches, may assist in addressing this situation. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the application of the Convention’s principles beyond the level of the establishment or enterprise, including in cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, as envisaged under Article 4 of the Convention.

Objective job evaluation methods. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments concerning the development and use of methods of objective job evaluation, the Government refers to section 110 of the new Labour Code which sets out specific factors and subfactors of job evaluation. The Committee also notes that, according to the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions, one of the main causes of remuneration differentials is the valuation of women’s competencies as compared to men’s. While the Committee welcomes the legal framework for objective job evaluation set out in section 110 of the Labour Code, it also notes that there is a need to develop and use specific methods of job evaluation incorporating these factors and ensuring their application free from gender bias. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the development and use of objective job evaluation methods as a means to promote equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, in accordance with Article 3.

Public service. The Committee notes that the entry into force of Act No. 218/2002 (Service Act) has been further postponed until 1 January 2009, while Government Decision No. 881 of 13 August 2007 sets forth principles for the new legislation governing public employment. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the development of public service legislation and to indicate whether and how it applies the Convention’s principle.

Gender remuneration gap. The Committee notes that the overall gender remuneration gap (average monthly wage) has decreased from 25.1 per cent in 2004 to 24.6 per cent in 2006. As regards the median wage, the gap decreased from 19.1 per cent in 2004 to 18.3 per cent in 2006. According to EUROSTAT, the average hourly earnings gap between men and women was 19 per cent in 2005. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed statistical data on the earnings of men and women. Please also provide a summary of the findings of the study entitled “The structure of differences in earnings of men and women in management” published by the Research Institute on Labour and Social Affairs in 2007.