Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2009, Publication: 98th ILC session (2009)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Republic of Korea (Ratification: 1998)

The Government communicated the following written information:

Migrant workers management system in the Republic of Korea

Development of the labour migration policy in the Republic of Korea

From a country sending its workers abroad in the 1960s and the 1970s, the Republic of Korea turned into a receiving country in the 1990s. Based on its unique experience as both a sending and receiving country, the Government had been developing labour migration policy taking into consideration not only the national economic needs of introducing foreign workers but also due protection of foreign workers’ rights.

In 1993, the Industrial Trainee System (ITS) was established to address labour shortages faced especially by small and medium-sized enterprises. After ten years of its operation of the ITS, the Government introduced the Employment Permit System (EPS) in 2004 through the “Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers”. The EPS was designed to address the shortcomings of the ITS, such as irregularities in the sending and receiving process and disruption of domestic labour markets, thereby improving the management system of migrant workers. Since 2004, the EPS had become the only channel through which low-skilled migrant workers were granted permission to work in the Republic of Korea. The merits of EPS, compared with ITS, could be summarized as follows:

– Under the EPS system, transparency in the sending and receiving process was ensured and irregularities were reduced as the sending and receiving process was conducted only by public organizations as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the two governments.

– Labour laws, including the Industrial Compensation Insurance Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Labour Standard Act, were equally applied to ant workers and Korean nationals to protect migrant workers’ rights.

– Labour quota for foreign workers was determined each year based on the labour supply and demand to receive appropriate number of foreign workers for SMEs facing labour shortages while protecting employment opportunities for Korean nationals.

As of 2009, the Korean Government had signed the MOU with 15 countries and a total of 191,592 workers entered the Republic of Korea from 14 countries from 2004 to March 2009.

After only three years since the introduction of the EPS, a remarkable progress had been made especially with regard to the reduction of the number of workers absent without leave, cases of overdue wages and amount of average sending cost.

Results of survey on the implementation of the EPS in its third year (2007)

Workers absent without leave (%) / Workers experenced overdue wage (%) / Average sending cost (US$)

ITS / 50.5 / 36.8 / 3 509

EPS / 3.3 / 9.0 / 1 097

Change of workplace and other rights of migrant workers

Under the EPS, migrant workers were required to work at the workplace where they were placed initially. However, in case it was deemed impossible for migrant workers to maintain employment relations at the workplace where they were assigned, they were allowed to change workplaces for up to 3–4 times. The legitimate reasons for changing workplace were as follows:

– In case of cancellation of the labour contract by the employer or legitimate refusal to renew the contract on expiry.

– In case migrant workers could no longer work at the workplace due to reasons not attributable to them, such as suspension of business or workplace shut down.

– In case of cancellation of employment permit to hire foreign workers or imposition of an employment limit on the employer.

– In case the worker was injured, and was not able to continue working in the initial workplace.

In addition to the abovementioned cases, a revised bill was drawn up and submitted to the National Assembly in November 2008 to include other cases in which the workers were allowed to change workplaces. These included cases where working conditions differed from the terms provided in the labour contract and where employers treated workers unfairly including through the violation of the labour contract. In order to change workplaces, workers only needed to submit an application for changing workplace to a local jobcentre where cases were reviewed and approved. As of March 2009, 130,000 cases of workplace changes had been reported, illustrating that in practice, workers were allowed to change workplaces as long as they had legitimate reasons.

Labour inspection and monitoring for migrant workers’ rights were conducted mainly on small-sized businesses and counselling service was provided to address difficulties faced by migrant workers in a way to strengthen protection of human rights of migrant workers.

Mandatory insurances – return cost insurance for return flight ticket, casualty insurance for accident and death unrelated to work, guarantee insurance for overdue wage, and departure guarantee insurance for severance pay – were other measures to protect workers and support their stay and return process.

Some five migrant worker support centres were currently in operation to provide: counselling services in workers’ native languages; Korean language courses; computer skills programmes, etc. The Government was planning to set up more centres and diversify the services.

Equality of opportunity and treatment of women and men

Eliminating gender discrimination in employment

In order to guarantee equal opportunity and treatment between men and women in employment, the Government enacted “the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation.” The Act prohibited discrimination in recruitment and hiring, wages and other welfare benefits, education, assignment, dismissal, etc. It also prohibited sexual harassment, imposed a fine for any violation and obliged employers to provide preventive education. In addition, the Affirmative Action Scheme had been implemented in government subsidiaries, government-invested institutions, and private companies of a certain size or larger, since 2006, in order to proactively increase female participation in the workplace. Under this scheme, the organizations were required to submit and carry out an affirmative action plan and to increase the proportion of their female workers and managers in case the current figures were less than 60 per cent of the average numbers in the companies of a similar size, which were in the same or similar industry.

Since the introduction of the Affirmative Action Scheme, the proportion of female workers and managers was gradually increasing in those workplaces.

Female employment at workplaces subject to the Affirmative Action Scheme

Year / Female employment rate (%) / Female managers (%) / Remarks

2006 / 30.7 / 10.2 / 1 000 employees or more

2007 / 32.3 / 11.0 / 1 000 employees or more

2008 / 32.4 / 12.0 / 500 employees or more

----/ 35.0 / 13.2 / 1 000 employees or more

In order to monitor the improvements, the Government had announced the employment equality index by gender every year since 2006. The index had been on the rise from 55.7 per cent in 2006, to 57.1 per cent in 2008. The employment equality index by gender showed relative employment status of female or male wageworkers. It consisted of four sub-indices – labour participation index, labour compensation index, labour status index, and job security index – and a composite index that was a weighted average of the four sub-indices.

The Government also provided standardized interview guidelines to be referred to in the recruitment procedure and distributed self-inspection checklists, etc. to firmly establish the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It was also strengthening guidance and inspections for workplaces to ensure that any unlawful acts with regard to maternity protection, gender discrimination and equal pay for work of equal value were not committed under the pretext of the economic recession, etc. In addition, the Government referred to measures protecting maternity, paternity and supporting reconciliation of work and family life.

Promoting female employment and supporting skills development

In order to promote female employment, the Government had established a work net and employment service centres for women. It also subsidized setting up facilities favourable for female employment and consulting services aimed at expanding female employment. Meanwhile, the Government had designated private employment service agencies as “return-to-work centres for women” and through such centres, offered comprehensive employment services including job counselling, vocational training and job placement services. The Government had designated and operated 72 such centres in 2009 and by 2012 the number of centres would increase by 100. The Government also promoted participation of unemployed women in vocational training, and provided specialized training for vulnerable groups, such as career-break women and unemployed female household heads. Besides, it used the Individual Training Accounts to expand the participation of unemployed women in vocational training.

With a view to increasing jobs for women, the Government was fostering social enterprises engaged in patient-care and child-care services, which were favourable for female employment (218 in 2008, 400 in 2009). In 2009, 1.5 trillion won of its budget would be injected, with a target of creating 161,000 social service jobs suitable for women, such as patient caring, post-partum care of mothers and their newborn babies, and baby-sitting, etc.

Additional grounds of discrimination

Age

With the aim of banning age discrimination, the “Aged Employment Promotion Act” was amended into “the Act on Age Discrimination Prohibition in Employment and Aged Employment Promotion” in March 2008. The Act prohibited age discrimination in every aspect of employment including recruitment, hiring, wages, welfare benefits, education, training, assignment, transfer, promotion, retirement and dismissal. It also stipulated a procedure by which any victim of such discrimination could file for a remedy with the Human Rights Commission, and penal provisions such as imposing a fine for a violation. Meanwhile, the Government provided subsidies for companies that extended retirement age limits, adopted a wage peak system, employed large numbers of aged workers, etc. In 2008, a total of 273,945 people received 48 billion won in these subsidies.

Disability

In order to promote employment of the disabled, the Government enacted “the Act on Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons” in 1990. Under the Act, the State and local governments were mandatorily required to hire three per cent or more of their employees from the disabled, and to regularly submit related employment plans. Private companies with 50 full-time workers or more, too, were mandatorily required to hire at least two per cent of their employees from the disabled. An employer who failed to meet the mandatory employment quota was imposed corresponding levies. The number and percentage of disabled workers employed by companies subject to mandatory employment requirement were 10,461 persons in 1991 (0.43 per cent) and 89,546 in 2007 (1.54 per cent).

A legal framework for prohibiting any discrimination against the disabled was set up through the enactment of “the Anti-Discrimination and Remedy for Persons with Disability Act” in 2008. It prohibited discrimination against the disabled in hiring, promotion, dismissal, etc. and compulsorily required employers to provide technical aids and equipment for workers with disabilities. In case of a violation, a remedy could be sought through the National Human Rights Commission, etc.

Employment status

In December 2006, to balance worker protection and labour market flexibility, the Government enacted “the Act on Protection, etc., of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees.” The Act came after intensive debates and fact-finding surveys organized mainly by the Tripartite Commission and further discussion in the National Assembly for another two years. The Act stipulated the ban on undue discrimination against fixed-term and part-time workers and provided an effective remedial procedure to redress such discrimination. In particular, the Government introduced a system that allowed workers, subject to discrimination, to directly request a redress to the Labour Relations Commissions. An opinion survey found that this system had the effect of preventing discrimination in advance as it prompted companies to voluntarily improve employment conditions. However, the system was still in its early stages and partially applied. Once decisions and rulings by the Labour Relations Commissions and the courts were accumulated to provide standardized criteria for judgement, the system was expected to play an important role in improving employment conditions for workers in diverse employment status. In order to prevent abuses and to enhance the effectiveness of the remedial procedure, the Act obliged the employers to state the terms of employment contracts in writing and to make efforts to preferentially employ fixed-term and part-time workers already working in the workplace concerned when hiring regular workers.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative stated that since ratifying Convention No. 111 in 1998, the Government had been striving to implement the latter while bearing in mind the principles of equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation, as enshrined in the Declaration of Philadelphia and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With respect to migrant workers, the Government had enacted the “Act on the Employment of Foreign Workers” in August 2003, which introduced the Employment Permit System (EPS). The EPS was introduced to provide a legal framework for the employment of migrant workers and their effective management at the government level. The EPS had two distinctive features: firstly, it ensured transparency in the receiving and sending procedures. Based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concluded between the Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Korea and the relevant ministry of the sending country, the receiving and sending process was carried out on a government-to-government basis, thereby blocking the involvement of private recruiting agencies, which often engaged in irregularities. Secondly, under the EPS any unreasonable discrimination against migrant workers was prohibited: the labour laws, including the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Labour Standards Act were equally applied to migrant workers and Korean nationals. At present, the Government had signed MOUs with 15 countries.

She added that under the EPS, foreign workers were in principle permitted to change workplaces up to three times, and four times at most during their three years of stay. As the EPS was designed to grant employment permits to the employer, workers who entered the Republic of Korea under it were, in principle, required to work for the employer with whom they initially signed employment contracts. She recalled that one conclusion of the 40th session of the ILC stated that it seemed necessary to make exceptions to allow for the continuation of restrictions on the access of non-nationals to employment. Another conclusion stated that the foreign worker was restricted to a particular post or sector of employment and he might change his employment only with the permission of the competent authorities … this system facilitated manpower movement across frontiers which might otherwise not occur, and did not seem to give rise to serious objections so long as it is confined to the initial period of a foreign worker’s stay. The EPS nevertheless allowed a certain degree of flexibility for the purpose of protecting migrant workers’ human rights. For instance, it allowed migrant workers to change their workplaces for the following reasons: when workers were not able to continue working at the current workplace due to reasons not attributable to them, such as employers’ refusal to renew the contract, cancellation of the current contract, or business shutdown or suspension; when the employment permit was cancelled due to employers’ violation of labour-related laws and working conditions; when workers were unable to work in the current workplace due to injury.

Additionally, the Bill revising the EPS that was submitted to the National Assembly in November 2008 provided for greater flexibility. The revised Bill enabled migrant workers to change workplaces in case working conditions differed significantly from the terms provided for in the employment contract, or in case the worker had been subjected to unfair treatment, including the violation of agreed-upon working conditions. As of March 2009, about 130,000 workers had changed workplaces, demonstrating that in practice, workers were allowed workplace transfers in most cases when they had legitimate reasons. In case a migrant worker’s rights were violated, he or she could file a complaint at a regional labour office under the Ministry of Labour. In 2008, out of 4,251 cases filed to regional labour offices, 2,475 were settled through the administrative process and 1,754 cases through the judicial process. The regional labour offices also conducted labour inspections in the workplaces where migrant workers were concentrated; inspections were conducted in 713 workplaces in 2007 and 934 in 2008, and corrections were made with respect to such matters as overdue payments and violation of working hours and leave. Additionally, 81 job centres across the nation dispensed guidance and monitored workplaces covered by the EPS.

With regard to the information on court cases concerning discrimination requested by the Committee of Experts, she regretted that the disaggregated statistics were not available. However, the data from the National Human Rights Commission showed that a total of 64 cases were filed from 2001 to June 2009 concerning discrimination in employment based on national origin, ethnicity, race, and colour. Among them, three cases were cited, 51 cases dismissed, and four cases settled during investigation. The cited cases were disposed of with recommendations for policy improvement, mutual consent, or recommendations for corrective measures. She stated that the Government was also proactively assisting EPS workers to adapt to their workplaces. Beginning this year, the Government was providing support for cultural events for migrant workers, in cooperation with the embassies of the sending countries, and undertaking outreach programmes to provide counselling and basic medical services. Through a returnee support programme called “Happy Return” vocational training was being provided to returning workers, as well as job placement services with Korean businesses operating in their home countries.

As concerned gender equality, she noted that the employment rate of women continued to grow from 53.1 per cent in 2006 to 53.2 per cent in 2007, although at a very slow pace, as mentioned in the Committee of Experts’ report. However, due to the recent economic situation the number had fallen to 52.4 per cent as of April 2009. Nevertheless, there had been a significant change in the female employment rate in the civil service; the percentage of women in the civil service was 3.6 times higher than the 3 per cent figure of 1999, a decade ago. The “employment target system for gender equality” implemented by the Government since 2003 was considered to have played an important role in this increase. Since March 2006, the Government had also implemented the “affirmative action scheme”, which required public organizations and private companies of a certain size to maintain the proportion of female workers and managers at 60 per cent or higher than the average of the companies of a similar size in the same or similar industry. In case of failure to meet the requirement, they should draw up and report a plan to improve the situation. As a result of the scheme, the proportion of female managers in workplaces with 1,000 employees or more rose 2 per cent yearly, to 13.2 per cent in 2008.

In order to monitor compliance with the ban on gender discrimination in employment, the Government had established a comprehensive plan for guidance and inspection every year. In 2008, the Government conducted guidance and inspection for 1,628 workplaces and had most of the violations corrected. According to the “Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation”, an employer should give equal pay for work of equal value in the same business. To ensure compliance, the Government also provided consulting services, job interview guidelines as well as a manual on gender-based discrimination. It would also develop and provide a self-inspection checklist so that employers and workers voluntarily could check and improve discriminatory elements in wage payment. Thanks to these efforts, in 2002 women earned 64.5 per cent of the corresponding salary of men while in 2008 the figure stood at 66.5 per cent. Nonetheless, since seniority-based wage systems remained dominant and wage levels were based on educational qualifications, length of service and experience, there were some limitations to policy implementation. Companies needed to modify their labour management systems and wage structures, but such reforms remained a challenge as trade unions preferred the current seniority-based wage system.

With a view to increasing job opportunities for women, the Government was injecting 1.5 trillion won of its budget in order to foster social enterprises, such as patient-care service, with the target of creating 400 such enterprises in 2009. Also, expanding maternity protection and supporting the reconciliation of work and family life were essential to ensuring equality for female workers. In the Republic of Korea, female workers were granted maternity leave of 90 days and employers were required to grant paternity leave of three days. A worker with an infant or a child under the age of three could take childcare leave of up to one year and the childcare leave benefits were partially financed by the Government. She referred to the written information supplied by the Government for more detailed information on the measures taken to promote the employment of women and to support their skills development; the document also contained information on the measures taken to combat discrimination against the elderly and people with disabilities.

In respect of fixed-term and part-time workers, she stated that in December 2006, and in order to balance worker protection and labour market flexibility, the Government enacted the “Act on Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees”. This Act came after intensive debates and fact-finding surveys organized mainly by the Tripartite Commission, which were followed by further discussion in the National Assembly for another two years. The Act banned undue discrimination against fixed-term and part-time workers and established an effective remedial procedure within Labour Relations Commissions for acts of discrimination. The Act also obliged employers to state the terms of employment contracts in writing and to make efforts to preferentially employ fixed-term and part-time workers already working in the workplace concerned when hiring regular workers. A recent opinion survey found that this system had the effect of preventing discrimination in advance as it prompted companies to voluntarily improve employment conditions. However, the system was still in its early stage and only partially applied. Once decisions and rulings by the Labour Relations Commissions and the courts had been sufficiently accumulated to provide standardized criteria for judgment, the system was expected to play an important role in improving employment conditions for workers in diverse employment settings.

In concluding, she maintained that all forms of excessive discrimination should be eliminated, not only in the world of work, but also in every aspect of human life. The policy measures the Government had taken were designed to eliminate discrimination in a way appropriate to national conditions and practices, as stated in Article 3 of Convention No. 111. She reiterated that the Government was doing its utmost to eradicate discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. Not content to rest on its achievements, the Government was committed to bringing about improvements based on opinions from all sectors of society.

The Employer members stated that observations had been made on four occasions and that it was the first time that the case had come up for discussion. Regarding Article 1 of the Convention, there was no provision in national legislation that prohibited discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national ascendancy or political opinion; nor did it prohibit indirect discrimination in the terms of Convention No. 111. The situation had begun to improve from 2005 onwards, when protection and assistance measures were introduced. Act No. 6507 of 14 August 2001, for instance, imposed a restriction on the number of hours that women who had given birth could work over the course of a year. In 2006, regulations were introduced on the entry of migrant workers to do internships, who under the Employment Services System of 2004 had been too dependent on the employer and could therefore fall victims to exploitation and find it difficult to look for better paid jobs. In 2007, the Foreign Workers’ Employment Act allowed unskilled workers to be employed in specific sectors of the economy under contracts that were renewable each year up to a maximum of three years, provided they did not change employer – save in exceptional cases where the employer violated the terms of the contract. Between 2001 and 2006, the National Commission on Human Rights examined 1,222 complaints of employment discrimination, only one of which concerned migrant workers. Help centres for migrant workers were set up to provide advisory and medical services. In 2008, the Government envisaged additional grounds for allowing them to change their place of work. The infringement of labour legislation by employers who failed to pay workers their wages made it difficult to maintain an employment contract.

On the subject of disability, the modifications to the Act concerning the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Compensation for the Infringement of their Rights came into force on 11 April 2008. Regarding equal opportunity and treatment between men and women in employment, which was the main thrust of decent work, one could point to a certain equity in terms of rights inasmuch as the discrimination faced by women in the world of work had to be combated as a matter of fundamental human rights and justice. Furthermore, from the standpoint of efficiency it could be argued that women played a vital role as potential economic agents in the transformation of society and of the economic environment. Equality was not valued simply for its intrinsic virtue; it also played a decisive part in furthering economic growth and reducing poverty.

The Employer members emphasized the importance of the effective application of Convention No. 111 by the Republic of Korea as it was one of the core Conventions, and it therefore welcomed the Government’s assurances of its intention to comply with the Convention. They recalled that, under Article 2, member States undertook “to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation”, while Article 3 made the same point by referring to “methods appropriate to national conditions and practice”. An effective social dialogue with the employers’ and workers’ organizations was needed to improve disaggregated statistics and to make labour inspection more efficient and non-discriminatory.

The Worker members highlighted that the case on the Republic of Korea had been chosen because of their belief that discrimination within the Korean labour market had increased. After having consulted the written information communicated by Government, they felt that the Government’s view was a little too optimistic.

With regard to the issue of migrant workers, the new system of work permits tied workers to their employers and did not allow them to change their place of work except under very restrictive and limiting conditions. Such inflexibility exposed workers to intimidation, abuse and reprisals on the part of employers and constituted basic discrimination. The Government had stated that a draft bill included new provisions allowing workers to change their place of work if the employer had not fulfilled the essential conditions of the contract and had not, for example, paid the salary that was due. The bill certainly represented progress, but it failed to limit the power of the employer and, on its own, would not put an end to discriminatory practices. Furthermore, the new provision did not improve the situation of migrant workers as, once they were without employment, they had only two months to find other work and would be compelled to accept new jobs, even under duress. Also, migrant workers could not reside in the country for longer than three years and required an “invitation” from their employers in order to stay a further three years. Employers often promised new contracts in order to force workers to accept unpaid overtime.

The Worker members stated that the Government had failed to indicate that it also intended to deduct accommodation and food costs from workers’ salaries, which were currently paid by employers. The Government also refused to recognize the Migrant Workers’ Trade Union, in direct contravention of the provisions of Convention No. 87.

With regard to the issue of discrimination based on age or disability, new laws prohibited any form of discrimination and promoted employment for older or disabled persons, with grants and quotas. The Worker members said that they would await data and would be interested to see the results of those new legislative provisions.

As for the issue of discrimination against women, the Committee of Experts had noted a slight increase in the rate of female employment in 2007. In 2006, an affirmative action scheme had been established, obliging the public sector and large private companies to recruit more women if the rate of female employment fell below 60 per cent of the average in their sector. According to the figures communicated by the Government, the rate of female employment had risen by an average of 2.5 per cent per year, but had only reached a rate of 35 per cent by 2008. Inequality in salary rates was worse than that declared by the United States; women only received 63.4 per cent of the salary that men received.

Another worst form of discrimination, based on employment status, was noted between regular and irregular workers. In 2005, so-called casual or temporary workers constituted 56 per cent of all male workers and 70 per cent of all female workers. One in every two men and two in every three women were therefore considered as irregular or casual workers. In comparison with 100 per cent of the salary of a regular worker, the irregular male worker only earned 49.7 per cent, while irregular female workers earned only 39.1 per cent. In December 2006, a law on the protection of salaries for fixed-term and part-time contracts had been enacted, which prohibited all discrimination regarding the employment status of workers. The law had come into force under the slogan “flexibility without discrimination”, which brought to mind the Danish “flexicurity” model; in the current case, it referred more to Korean “flexequality”. It should be noted that the pay gap between regular and temporary workers had widened, 87 per cent of those who had been made redundant following the economic crisis were women, four out of every five regular workers enjoyed social security compared with one in every three temporary workers, and among the 46 cases brought before judicial authorities, only two had been judged to be discriminatory.

According to the Worker members, the law could not be applied as it limited the workers’ right to appeal and did not open it up to trade union organizations. Moreover, many workers had, under duress, withdrawn the complaints filed against their employers. The law intended, in addition, to reconcile two contradictory objectives: eliminating all forms of discrimination towards temporary workers while at the same time introducing greater flexibility by increasing temporary employment. In that regard, the Worker members stated that discrimination in the Republic of Korea was not yet set to disappear.

A Worker member of the Republic of Korea observed that although all workers were affected by the current global economic crisis, migrant workers, precarious workers and women workers remained among the most vulnerable and, as such, should be the focus of any solutions designed to resolve the crisis. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, employment status, and gender had unfortunately grown more severe in the Republic of Korea, and the Government had failed to take appropriate measures in response to this phenomenon. Discrimination on the basis of employment status, particularly as concerned workers with fixed-term labour contracts, and with regard to wages, welfare or working conditions, had rapidly increased in recent years. As of August 2008, precarious workers accounted for 52 per cent of the total labour force. Wage disparities had increased, so that precarious workers’ wages were now only 50 per cent of that of regular workers. The wage disparity for women workers was even greater, as female precarious workers received only 39 per cent of regular workers’ average wages. Additionally, only 37 per cent of precarious workers received social security benefits, compared to around 90 per cent of regular workers.

The application of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value was a key tool for preventing discrimination. He pointed out, however, that this principle was not clearly expressed in the Protection of Fixed-term and Part-time Workers’ Act, and urged the Government to amend article 6 of the Labour Standards Act so as to incorporate this crucial principle. Weak anti-discrimination measures in the Protection of Fixed-term and Part-time Workers’ Act was a principal reason for increased discrimination against precarious workers; as of August 2008, only 46 petitions concerning discrimination had been filed, despite the scale of the problem, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Act’s provisions. Also, as only individuals and not organizations were permitted to file petitions under the Act, many workers were unwilling to come forward with complaints for fear of being dismissed; cases where workers who had filed petitions had been fired existed, as in the case of the Agricultural Cooperatives Joint Market, where the employer refused to renew the worker’s contract after the local Labour Relations Commission ruled that the worker had indeed faced discrimination at the worksite. In this connection, the speaker underscored the need for trade unions to be granted the right to submit petitions on behalf of workers.

The Government was attempting to render the situation as concerned discrimination even worse, by planning for instance to extend the maximum duration of temporary contracts from two to four years. He requested the Committee to urge the Government to prioritize ensuring equal treatment for precarious workers, instead of weakening the current law’s protections in its single-minded push for labour market flexibility.

Migrant workers also faced serious discrimination, as evidenced by the serious legislative restrictions referred to in the Committee of Experts’ report. The Government was planning to include housing and food costs in the calculation of the minimum wage of migrant workers, who were already suffering from low wages and poor working and living conditions. Furthermore, the Korean Federation of Small and Medium Businesses had issued a directive to its members to deduct 8 to 20 per cent of the minimum wage from migrant workers’ salaries for food and housing. He requested the Committee to urge the Government to halt its plan to introduce these wage deductions and permit migrant workers to change employers freely. Recalling that collective bargaining was instrumental to securing the rights under Convention No. 111 in practice, he stressed that full respect for freedom of association was a necessary precondition for enabling workers’ and employers’ organizations to carry out their important role in addressing discrimination. However, precarious and migrant workers’ freedom of association rights were seriously repressed. The Migrants Trade Union, an affiliate of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, was still denied legal recognition. Moreover, a leader of the Korean Transport Workers Union, who had disguised himself as a “self-employed” worker at Daehan Tongwoon, tragically sacrificed his life for the cause of trade union recognition. The Government had issued an order to the Korean Construction Workers’ Union and the Korean Transport Workers’ Union to voluntarily dissolve their membership, as their members were categorized as “self-employed”. He requested the Committee to urge the Government to ensure freedom of association for precarious workers to prevent further forms of discrimination.

The Employer member of the Republic of Korea noted that policies on migrant workers depended on each country’s unique economic and social situation. The EPS limited workplace mobility, which was unavoidable in order to fully comply with the employment contract and to prevent labour market distortions by foreign workers. Notwithstanding the existence of limitations, some exceptional cases were recognized for the protection of foreign workers’ rights and interests, for example, when employers rejected the renewal of employment contracts after termination without specific reasons, or when it was difficult for foreign workers to continue their work for reasons not attributable to themselves. If foreign workers would be allowed to freely change workplaces, they would be tempted to move to another workplace even for an insignificant difference in wage rates. This frequent mobility would undermine the ability of employers to manage their workers, and as a result, increase the heavy financial burden of employee education and training. Compared to other countries, wage rates in the Republic of Korea were high – 5 to 15 times higher than those in migrant workers’ home countries. Therefore, from their perspective, a 5 to 10 per cent wage difference was substantial, and as a result, foreign workers would be inclined to frequently change workplaces. In fact, many employers had pointed out that workplace mobility was a major difficulty they were faced with in managing foreign workers. According to research done by the Korean Federation of Small and Medium Businesses, of 888 manufacturing companies employing foreign workers last year, 47 per cent of the respondents had experienced problems related to foreign workers’ demands for a workplace change. Furthermore, there was no discrimination between domestic and foreign workers in terms of basic social protection, such as employment injury benefits and minimum wage.

As regards female temporary workers, as a result of the current global economic recession, female employment in the Republic of Korea had decreased. However, given that the male employment rate had also decreased, there was no downward trend of employment of women workers. The female employment rate had decreased by 0.2 per cent (from 48.9 per cent in 2007 to 48.7 per cent in 2008), while the male employment rate had decreased by 0.4 per cent (from 71.3 per cent in 2007 to 70.9 per cent in 2008). In relation to the argument that most non-regular workers were women, the speaker argued that it was an unavoidable global trend that, with the diversification of industries in modern society, occupations were also increasingly diversified. In order to raise the low participation rate of women, it was thus important to recognize increasingly diverse employment types, rather than to favour regular over temporary employment. Also, it should not be ignored that many women voluntarily chose to work part time, as this allowed them to choose flexible working hours and maintain a work–life balance. The gender wage gap was not caused by gender discrimination, but by the difference between men and women and other factors such as career interruption due to child birth, lower education levels, smaller periods of service, and less work experience than men. Many women at present were eager to work but they could not. However, women’s economic participation rate was still low. The answer to improving the situation lay in recognizing the growing diversification of employment types and improving the flexibility of the labour market. These measures had to be accompanied by increased assistance to women to enable full access to the labour market.

Another Worker member of the Republic of Korea stated that the Industrial Trainee System was introduced in the Republic of Korea in 1993 with the aim of resolving labour shortages. However, this system caused serious problems such as severe exploitation, human rights violation and discrimination. To address this situation, the Government introduced a new policy – the EPS – in 2004, and further improvements to the new system were introduced in 2007. Problematic provisions in the current legislation remained, however. It was almost impossible for migrant workers to change employer due to the heavy restrictions on workplace transfer pointed out by the Committee of Experts. Although under the EPS some restrictions on workplace transfer understandably were necessary in order to prevent job losses for low-wage and precarious local workers, especially in the construction sector where they had to compete with migrant workers, more flexibility should be allowed in the law so that migrant workers could also change workplaces when there was a sharp difference in wages and working conditions compared with other workers performing the same type of job. Job transfer should also be allowed when employers violated the laws prohibiting discriminatory treatment.

Another restriction on workplace transfer was the period for applying for a new job. Under immigration laws, if migrant workers failed either to obtain permission to change employer within two months of applying for a change of business or workplace, or to apply for a change of business or workplace less than a month from the termination of their labour contracts, they were subject to immediate deportation. A number of migrant workers had become undocumented due to these provisions as the prescribed periods were too short to find a new job, especially in the Korean labour market where there were not enough job opportunities. Therefore, extending this period was urgently needed to prevent migrant workers from becoming undocumented or being forced to leave the country before their contract term ended. In addition, the Government had to make every effort to ratify the related ILO Conventions including Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), and Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143), through amending the provisions of the current legislation which were not in line with international labour standards.

With respect to discrimination based on employment status, the Government was trying to amend the laws on precarious work; by the proposed amendment, the Government was attempting to extend the employment period of fixed-term workers, from the current two years to four years, and to expand the types of jobs allowed to temporary agency workers – currently only 26 types of jobs were allowed to the latter. He maintained that as these changes could lead to further discrimination against precarious workers by perpetuating their marginal and unstable status, the Government should take drastic measures to minimize the adverse effects of the current legislation and effectively redress discrimination against precarious workers instead of attempting to downgrade the current law. His organization, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) continued to promote social dialogue and sincerely hoped that the Government would find a reasonable solution regarding this matter as soon as possible, and in full consultation with the social partners.

A Worker member of Malaysia stated that the Malaysian Trade Union Congress was gravely concerned that the Korean EPS system led to severe discrimination against migrant workers. The Committee of Experts had previously noted that a system of employment of migrant workers which provided employers with the opportunity to exert disproportionate power over them could result in discrimination and had asked that the EPS be kept under review with a view to further decreasing the level of dependency of migrant workers in relation to their employers.

The two problematic points of EPS were, first, its prohibition of workers’ change of workplace unless there had been a documented labour law violation or the employer gave his consent. Second, the number of workplace changes was restricted even if there existed a documented labour law violation. As the Committee of Experts had noted in its 2008 report, this inflexibility made migrant workers vulnerable to discrimination and abuse. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had observed that migrant workers suffering such treatment might refrain from bringing complaints out of fear of retaliation by the employer although bringing a complaint was necessary to establish that the employer had violated the contract or legislation, which was a requirement for being granted permission to change the workplace. In order to solve these problems, the speaker recommended that this Committee requested that migrant workers be given the right to change their employers freely and that the restrictions on the number of times they could change be eliminated.

The fact that migrant workers leaving their employers were only granted two months to find a new workplace had led to migrant workers being forced to sign new contracts quickly and without adequate time to assess labour conditions. This constituted a severe restriction on the right to freely choose employment. The restriction on the length of time for finding new work should be abolished.

In his view, the short residency period of three years and the requirement for an invitation on the part of the employer to extend their stay for a second three-year term, as laid down in the EPS, was also problematic. Employers often used the promise of rehiring workers as a means to force them to accept unjust conditions such as forfeiting severance or overtime pay. To eliminate this abuse, migrant workers should be allowed to work for a term of five years with the possibility of extending the time once this term was completed. Food and housing costs should not be deducted from the calculation of migrant workers’ minimum wages.

He expressed his concern that the Government’s refusal to register the Migrants Trade Union (MTU) and the repeated arrest and deportation of union leaders denied migrant workers their right to form and participate in a trade union of their choosing. The Government had used the fact that the members of the MTU were primarily undocumented migrant workers as a justification for its denial of MTU’s status. However, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recently recommended that when examining legislation that denied the right to organize to migrant workers in an irregular situation – a situation similar to that of the MTU case – all workers, with the sole exception of members of the armed forces and the police, were covered by Convention No. 87. It therefore requested the Government to take the terms of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 into account in the legislation in question. Moreover, the Committee had recommended that the Government avoided measures which involved a risk of serious interference with trade union activities such as the arrest and deportation of trade union leaders shortly after their election to trade union office.

Freedom of association rights were of vital importance to ensuring equal opportunity with respect to employment and occupation. The Conference Committee should therefore recommend that the Government stopped targeting MTU leaders and granted MTU the status of a legal trade union, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Worker member of Germany stated that she spoke on behalf of her fellow female trade union members and wanted to focus on the discrimination of female employees in the Republic of Korea. In the worldwide economic crisis, women were the main losers and highlighted again that a staggering 87 per cent of the persons having lost their jobs were women. This figure was frightening, even more so if one recalled that employed women also were the main losers during the 1997–98 financial crisis. The Republic of Korea should have learned since then that women in particular deserved special protection of their rights. The Republic of Korea had ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as early as 1984. This Convention condemned every form of discrimination against women. In its Equal Employment Act, the Republic of Korea had further provided that women were not to be discriminated against because of their sex, pregnancy or their marital status. Reality, however, showed another picture.

It was mainly women who were exposed to precarious working conditions. While one in two men was employed in precarious working conditions, two out of three women were employed in such conditions. The National Human Rights Commission referred to a case where women were employed as temporary workers and were promised permanent contracts in the medium term; however, this never materialized. Yet, men nearly always obtained a permanent employment contract. This was flagrant discrimination against women due to their sex. She therefore urged the Government to especially consider the situation of women in its combat against precarious working conditions and to contribute to the improvement of women’s working conditions.

There was a further significant difference between the salaries of male and female workers. Recent research by the KCTU had shown that the salaries differed by 36 percentage points. This was an even larger difference than in the US, and the US was infamous among OECD countries for having the largest inequality of the salaries of men and women.

The Government had committed itself to complying with Convention No. 111 – even during the current economic crisis – and to become active against the discrimination of women and to ensure that women’s rights were complied with. Referring to the statement of the Korean Employer representative, she requested clarification as to whether in their view the Convention would justify discrimination of women, based only on the fact that women were the ones giving birth.

The Worker member of the United States made his observations in full solidarity with Korean workers and especially with the KCTU and the FKTU regarding the disparate treatment between regular and non-regular workers. This was a most compelling issue, as such discrimination had become all the more prevalent and devastating with the deepening of the global economic crisis. This dimension had to be reviewed by the Committee given the agenda of this year’s ILC Committee of the Whole. In spite of the comments made by the Employer member of the Republic of Korea, Article 1, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention, clearly justified review of the employment status discrimination aspect of this case. This particular dimension of the case was also covered by Article 1, paragraph 1(c) because discrimination based on difference in employment status produced an overwhelming and disproportionate negative impact on women – as 70 per cent of all Korean female workers were also non-regular and precarious workers. This case also had implications concerning the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

In 2006, the Government adopted a law enabling the expanded use of temporary contracts for up to two years. This measure exacerbated the precarious situation of many Korean employees. Notwithstanding the recent information provided by the Government to the Committee, this new law contributed to diminishing the ability of unions to bargain collectively and essentially formalized the practice of the past ten years. In the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, employers had imposed a rapid deregulation of the Korean labour market and precarious or non-regular work proliferated so that it constituted at least 56 per cent of the entire Korean workforce. The effects were staggering – as of August 2008, the ratio of the average wage for non-regular workers to that of regular workers was less than 50 per cent. Around 90 per cent of regular employees were covered by the social insurance systems, but the coverage of non-regular workers was only one third. While about 80 to 90 per cent of regular employees enjoyed benefits such as severance allowances, bonuses, overtime pay, and paid leave of absence, less than a quarter of the non-regular workers were entitled to such benefits.

The growing use of subcontracted, non-regular employees in the Republic of Korea’s basic manufacturing sectors, such as auto, steel, and electronics – the base of the nation’s formal workforce and of its trade union movement – was particularly ominous. In addition to being paid half of what regular and unionized employees had been receiving for the same work, these non-regular workers were subjected to more hazardous and dangerous conditions. According to the Labour Ministry’s own information, after reviewing the working conditions in 2,040 enterprises between February and May of 2007, 34 reported job-related deaths including 21 irregular workers. Repeatedly, when subcontracted and irregular manufacturing workers attempted to form a union, the primary contractor either terminated its agreement with the subcontracted company or the subcontracted company closed its business. Such was the practice over the last five years with Hynix Magna Chip, KM and I, GM Daewoo Motors, Donghee Auto, Hwasung Factor of Kia Motors, and Hyundai Hysco.

As the KCTU had observed, the Government’s Discrimination Corrective System (DCS), consisting of administrative complaints and remedies, was not getting to the root of the problem. The Labour Ministry and the National Labour Relations Commission did not assert jurisdiction over the primary contractor in the case of subcontracted dispatch workers, even though the primary contractor had the actual power to remedy the discriminatory wage rates for the dispatched employees. Moreover, it was still not clear whether the DCS could even maintain jurisdiction over the complaints of subcontracted irregular workers when primary contractors refused to renew their agreements with the subcontractors in the middle of the investigatory process.

Korean unions had rightly concluded that these problems would persist unless and until the Fair Labour Standards Act was amended to provide for equal wages for work of equal value, removing one of the primary incentives to further exploit the growing irregular workforce. Regrettably, the Government appeared to be moving in the opposite direction in the midst of the current global crisis, by simply proposing the extension of fixed term contracts from two to four years instead of pursuing an authentic macroeconomic policy of converting irregular workers into regular employees with full legal and protected, status. The speaker emphasized that the Committee had to maintain full vigilance in this case and called for an ongoing review at next year’s session.

The Government representative of the Republic of Korea informed that the category of so called non-regular workers was unique to the Republic of Korea, and different from informal workers. The definition of the workers covered by the “Non-Regular Workers’ Protection Law” was the subject of protracted discussions among the tripartite constituents finally resulting in an agreement in 2007. According to the agreed definition, non-regular workers in the Republic of Korea – which covered workers having regular employment relations in most other countries – were divided into contingent workers, part-time workers and atypical workers. The latter category included dispatched workers, contract company workers, workers in special types of employment, at-home workers and workers on call.

According to the supplementary survey to the economically active population survey, in March 2009 non-regular workers accounted for 33.4 per cent of the total number of wage-earners. Since the promulgation of the Non-Regular Workers’ Protection Law (Act on Protection of Fixed-term and Part-term Employees), the total number of non-regular workers had continued to fall, while the number of fixed-term workers had risen. The increase of fixed-term employments was a result of the Government’s policy to create jobs to overcome the economic downturn and the job-sharing efforts in the private sector.

With reference to the alleged violation of the right of freedom of association, she referred to paragraph 74 of the General Survey on equality in employment and occupation of 1988, which stated that: no specific clause concerning the right to establish or join trade unions or to participate in trade union activities was included in the Convention in order to avoid duplication of the provisions of Convention No. 87. Therefore it was not appropriate to discuss issues concerning trade unions, as they fell outside the scope of Convention No. 111.

Regarding the issue of extending the employment period for fixed-term workers, under the current Act, an employer could employ fixed-term workers for up to two years and if the employment period exceeded two years, the employer should employ them as regular workers. However, the surveys had found that the two-year limitation had decreased fixed-term workers’ chances of being converted to a regular status while increasing their chances of losing jobs as the company replaced them with other fixed-term workers or outsourced their work especially under the current economic difficulties.

The opinion surveys conducted by various media firms also showed that amid the recent economic recession, fixed-term workers had a smaller chance of being converted to a regular status and a bigger chance of losing jobs. So it was needed to extend the current two-year employment period further to ensure that companies retained fixed-term workers through contract renewals without throwing them out of work.

She recalled that the Government was effectively prohibiting discrimination through relevant laws and regulations as well as through diverse policy measures. The Government was also taking measures to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment for vulnerable groups of workers such as women, the aged and people with disabilities through protective measures and active preferential treatment. The observations of the Committee of Experts on the Government’s implementation of Convention No. 111 had touched upon discrimination based on the grounds of gender, age, migrant and employment status. She expected that the ILO and the Committee of Experts would facilitate the effective implementation of Convention No. 111 through the supervisory mechanisms within the boundaries of the Convention.

She then referred to the report which was prepared for the adoption of Convention No. 111 in 1958: “the words ‘national extraction’ might be taken to cover also foreign nationality.” However, it should be recalled that these words had been used in preference to national origin in order to make it clear that nationality was not covered. It was therefore obvious that it was not intended in this paragraph to deal with nationality. Furthermore, she made reference to the 1996 General Survey on Convention No. 111, which stated that the concept of ‘national extraction’ in the 1958 instruments did not refer to the distinctions that might be made between the citizens of one country and those of another, but to distinctions between the citizens of the same country on the basis of a person’s place of birth, ancestry or foreign origin.

In closing, she stated that, with full respect for the principles of Convention No. 111, the Government was determined to continue its efforts to eliminate every possible form of discrimination and promote reasonable equality in employment and occupation.

The Employer members appreciated the information provided by the Government which demonstrated its political will in so far as, since 2006, it had been reforming its laws to bring them into compliance with many of the comments of the Committee. The legislative amendments were gradual and, in some instances, did not result in decisive change. It was also well-known that on many occasions, although the legislative amendments were well-intentioned, they affected the legitimate interests of businesses, for example, with regard to their costs and budgets or the fear of provocations from workers that affected job security. Convention No. 111 was one of the fundamental Conventions on employment and the prevention of discrimination based on gender existed nowadays in respectable workplaces; in that regard, failure to comply with the Convention was inexcusable. Tripartite dialogue should be established in order to create better conditions through the implementation of the Convention. Article 3(a) urged governments to seek the cooperation of employers’ and workers’ organizations and other appropriate bodies in promoting the acceptance and observance of a national policy that encouraged equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, in order to eliminate all discrimination.

The Employer members hoped that future reports would show real progress in each of the areas that had been discussed before the Committee. The Government should provide copies of all legal texts that had recently been approved as well as precise statistical data disaggregated by, inter alia, sex, age and nationality. Equally, as the Committee had requested in 2008, monitoring should be strengthened regarding the implementation of legislation applicable to migrant workers in order to prevent discriminatory practices.

The Worker members stated that the labour market in the Republic of Korea seemed to change constantly, as much in relation to different forms of discrimination as in relation to the adaptation of its regulatory and monitoring functions. It was for this reason that they had requested the Committee, the Committee of Experts and the Office to carry out heavy monitoring of those changes and to establish a monitoring system on the developments that occurred in the Republic of Korea. To that end, the Government was requested to continue communicating precise information on the situations in which workers were exposed to discrimination, as well as on the measures that had been or would be taken to eliminate those situations, particularly regarding the new law on temporary work. In its report, the Committee of Experts had clearly indicated the information that it wished to be transmitted.

The Worker members urged the Government to amend its labour legislation. With regard to the Employment Permit System they urged that: migrant workers be able to change their workplace without any restriction; the period of residency be extended from three years to five years at minimum; the accommodation and food costs not be deducted from workers’ salaries; and, finally, the Migrant Workers’ Trade Union (MTU) be recognized as such and the harassment of its leaders be put to an end. The new law on the protection of temporary workers should be amended so that: trade unions were given the capacity to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of workers; the time limit for lodging a petition was extended from three to 12 months; the principle of “equal pay for work of equal value” was stipulated explicitly in the law; and finally, the scheme allowing temporary contracts to be extended from two to four years was abolished.

To conclude, the Worker members emphasized that the priority should be to ensure genuine and effective equality in the treatment of temporary and casual workers.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the oral and written information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had stressed the importance of ensuring effective promotion and enforcement of the labour and anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that migrant workers were not subject to discrimination and abuse contrary to the Convention. The Committee noted the measures that the Government had taken to improve the application of the existing anti-discrimination provisions in respect of migrant workers, including the establishment of five Korea Migrant Worker Support Centres, and a plan to expand the number of Centres and diversify their services. The Committee also noted the Government’s commitment to making continuous efforts to ensure respect for migrant workers’ rights. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that a bill had been submitted to the National Assembly in November 2008 to improve the Employment Permit System (EPS) providing greater flexibility so that migrant workers could change employers, including due to unfair treatment and violation of their employment contracts.

The Committee noted that the issue of protecting migrant workers from discrimination and abuse required the Government’s continuing attention and it therefore requested the Government to pursue, and, where necessary, to intensify its efforts in this regard. The Committee considered that measures reducing migrant workers’ excessive dependency on the employer by allowing for appropriate flexibility for migrant workers to change their workplace would assist in decreasing migrant workers’ vulnerability with regard to abuse and violations of their labour rights. It therefore called on the Government to review the functioning of the current arrangements for workplace changes, and the proposals in the draft bill, in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, with a view to determining how best to achieve the objective of reducing migrant workers’ vulnerability. The Committee asked the Government to provide in its report when it was next due, the results of this review for examination by the Committee of Experts. The Committee also recommended that the Government further strengthen the enforcement of the labour legislation, including through labour inspection, to protect migrant workers’ labour rights.

The Committee welcomed the various measures taken by the Government to promote women’s equality in employment and occupation, including the affirmative action scheme and the equality targets regarding recruitment and appointment to management positions. However, it expressed concern that women’s participation in the labour market continued to be at a very low level and that the gender pay gap continued to be very wide. The Committee insisted that discrimination based on gender was unacceptable and called on the Government to reinvigorate its efforts and to seek the cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in this regard.

The Committee also welcomed the recent adoption of legislation addressing discrimination in employment and occupation based on the grounds of age and disability. It called on the Government to take all measures necessary to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of these laws.

With regard to discrimination based on employment status, the Committee noted that the Act on Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees of 2006 prohibited discrimination against fixed-term and part-time workers. The Committee requested the Government to provide information concerning the difficulties encountered with the enforcement of the Act, and on whether trade unions were authorized to bring complaints on behalf of victims of such discrimination. The Committee also noted the significant differences in wages and social security coverage between regular and non-regular workers, based on employment status, and expressed concern that the large majority of non-regular workers were women. Noting that the Act was currently under review, the Committee called on the Government, in consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations, to improve the legislative protection against discrimination based on employment status, which disproportionally affected women. It called on the Government to provide further information on this matter for examination by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee requested the Government to provide in its next report under article 22 of the ILO Constitution detailed information on the measures taken and results achieved in addressing discrimination in all the areas mentioned above, as well as all the information requested in the Committee of Experts’ observation for its continuing examination of the situation.