Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2025, Publicación: 114ª reunión CIT (2026)

Trinidad y Tabago

Convenio sobre igualdad de remuneración, 1951 (núm. 100) (Ratificación : 1997)
Convenio sobre la discriminación (empleo y ocupación), 1958 (núm. 111) (Ratificación : 1970)

Previous comment on Convention No. 100

Previous comment on Convention No. 111

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on equality under examination this year, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 100 (Equal Remuneration) and 111 (Discrimination in Employment and Occupation) together.

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the Joint Trade Union Movement (JTUM) on 30 August 2024, regarding the application of the Convention in the public service. The Committee also takes note of the response provided by the Government on 4 November 2024, addressing these issues.

Convention No. 111 – National Policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation

Article 1(1)(a) and 3(b). Minimum Prohibited grounds of discrimination. Legislation. The Committee regrets that, in its report, the Government has failed to provide information on the potential inclusion of “colour” and “political opinion” in the Equal Opportunity Act, 2000. It notes that the Government has defined the term “origin” as geographical origin, ancestral and family background/family origin or parentage. In that regard, it wishes to stress that the ground of “social origin” enshrined in the Convention refers to situations in which an individual’s membership of a class, socio-occupational category or caste determines his or her occupational future, either because he or she is denied access to certain jobs or activities, or is assigned only certain jobs (see 2012 General Survey on Fundamental Conventions, paras 802–804). The definition of “origin” provided by the Government would appear to be covered by the ground of “national extraction” which covers distinctions made on the basis of a person’s place of birth, ancestry or foreign origin. Discrimination based on ‘national extraction’ may be directed against persons who are nationals of the country in question, but who have acquired their citizenship by naturalization or who are descendants of foreign immigrants, or persons belonging to groups of different national extraction living in the same State. Distinctions made between citizens of the same country on the basis of foreign birth or origin is one of the most evident examples (see 2012 General Survey, para. 764). The Committee wishes to emphasize that, where legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. The Committee takes note, in addition, that the Government is proposing to amend the Equal Opportunity Act (2000) to include ‘age’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as additional prohibited grounds of discrimination and to expand the pre-existing grounds of ‘disability’ to include medical conditions. Finally, the Committee notes with concern that the proposed amendments have been before the Attorney-General and Ministry of Legal Affairs for over a decade.

The Committee urges the Government totake the necessary measures to expeditiously conclude the revision of the Equal Opportunity Act 2000 to explicitly include “political opinion”, “colour” and “social origin” in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, as required by Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether the term “origin” in its national legislation falls within the Convention’s concept of “national extraction”. Please provide information on progress made in this regard. 

Discrimination based on sex. The Committee takes note of the observation submitted by JTUM about sex-based discrimination specifically citing: (1) section 14(2) of the Civil Service Regulations, which requires women officers to report their marriage to the Public Service Commission – a rule that does not apply to men; and (2) section 6 of the Pension Regulations (Chapter 23:52) which gives the option to women workers in the public service, with at least five years of service in a pensionable post, to retire on the grounds of marriage, an option not available to men officials. The JTUM also alludes to a provision which provides that the appointment of a married female officer may be terminated on the ground that her family obligations are affecting the efficient performance of her duties (Regulation 52 of the Police Commission Regulations previously identified by the Committee). The Committee notes with concern that the new Police Service Commission Regulations, omitting Regulation 52, are still awaiting review by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel since the decision to revoke them in January 2019; and that the new Civil Service Act and Regulations (omitting section 14(2)) have been drafted in 2021 and are still under review. With regard to section 6 of the Pension Regulations, the Government states that, the Law Reform (Pensions) Act No. 20 of 1997 provides all officers, including married women, with the option to leave service after two years in a pensionable post without loss of accrued pension benefits (section 6), thus reducing the number of retirements based on marriage. Nonetheless, the Committee wishes to point out that discrimination in employment and occupation against married women often arises from stereotypes viewing them as unreliable employees due to conflicting domestic responsibilities (see 2023 General Survey on Achieving Gender Equality at Work, para. 95).

The Committee urges the Government to expedite the finalization and adoption of the revised Police Commission Regulations and Civil Service Act. Please provide updates on progress and copies of the finalized texts once adopted. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the practical implication of section 6 of the Pension Regulation and any measures in place to ensure that this provision does not result in discrimination against married women in employment and occupation.

Sexual harassment. The Government reports that the draft policy position paper on the Employment Standards Bill remains under consideration by the Industrial Relations Advisory Committee (IRAC). Additionally, it states that the draft Sexual Harassment Bill 2022, though developed through extensive consultations, has yet to be adopted. The Committee welcomes the Government’s public awareness initiatives on the National Workplace Policy on Sexual Harassment, including the outreach and training sessions conducted by the Conciliation Advisory and Advocacy Division (CAAD) of the Ministry of Labour, which targeted workers and their representative organizations. It also notes that CAAD, through its helpline, recorded 50 sexual harassment complaints between March 2023 and July 2024, and documented 11 complaints and 5 training requests from 2021–24 through a dedicated email. However, the Committee notes with regret that: (1) that the Government has not provided information on the concrete steps taken to prevent and prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace within the framework of the National Workplace Policy nor on the outcomes of the complaints; and (2) the lack of information on advocacy and awareness-raising efforts targeted specifically at employers and their organizations.

The Committee again asks the Government to report on: (i) any progress made in the adoption of legislation prohibiting all forms of sexual harassment in employment and occupation, including the Employment Standards Bill and the Sexual Harassment Bill; (ii) any specific measures implemented to prevent and prohibit sexual harassment in employment and occupation, in particular in the framework of the National Workplace Policy; and (iii) any complaint or case of sexual harassment dealt with by the competent authorities, including on the results thereof.

Gender-neutral terminology. The Committee previously noted the persistence of the use of sex-specific terminology to describe certain categories of workers (in the Schedule, Parts I–VI, of the Civil Service Regulations) that may reinforce stereotypes regarding whether certain jobs should be carried out by men or women (for example, postman, watchman, foreman, repairman, handyman, ward or home sister, matron, maid, laundress), or whether women may have access to decision-making positions (for example, “chief male nurse”, or the distinction made between “male airport attendant” and “female airport attendant” for airport attendant I and II). The JTUM, in its observation, also highlighted the use of sex-specific terminology in legislation as a barrier to achieving equality between men and women in employment and occupation. In response to the Committee request to amend the legislation to ensure that it contains gender-neutral terminology, the Government explains that section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act, affirms that male pronouns encompass all genders. Nonetheless, the Committee notes with concern the statement of the Government that adopting gender-neutral terminology would require redesignating job titles, obtaining ministerial approval, and issuing variation orders. The Committee wishes to stress that using gender-neutral job descriptions can help create a more inclusive work environment and attract a wider pool of talent, correct gender biases in job valuations and thus reduce the risk of pay discrimination and challenge traditional gender norms.

The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the use of gender-neutral terminology in job titles and classification across all sectors and, in the meantime, to take measures to promote the importance of gender-neutral language to help prevent discrimination and stereotyping, eliminate gender bias, and advance equality between men and women in employment and occupation.

Convention No. 100 – Principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value

Articles 1 and 2. Legislation. The Committee reiterates its long-standing concern that, while the Equal Opportunity Act, 2000 prohibits discrimination in employment, it does not specifically address the concept of equal remuneration for work of equal value. It further notes that, following consultations in August 2020, the Industrial Relations Advisory Committee (IRAC) developed draft Policy Recommendations on Employment Standards, which were reviewed by the Minimum Wages Board in 2022. These recommendations were further updated by the IRAC in June 2024 to reflect post-pandemic changes in the labour market and are expected to be submitted to Cabinet following ministerial approval. The Committee notes with concern the slow pace of progress and emphasizes that limiting legal provisions to equal pay for ‘the same or similar work’ fails to address structural inequalities and may obstruct efforts to close the gender pay gap (see 2012 General Survey, para. 679).

The Committee once again urges the Government to give full legislative expression to the principle of the Convention, including through the adoption of the Employment Standards Bill. Please provide information on any progress made in that regard, as well as on any proactive measures taken to raise awareness of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value among workers, employers and their representative organizations and also among law enforcement officials.

Article 2. Collective Bargaining. The Committee notes the role of the CAAD in advising unions and employers on the importance of using gender-neutral terminology and welcomes this proactive approach to promoting non-biased job classifications in collective agreements. The Government indicates that: (1) the regrading and reclassification exercise for daily-rated positions at the Port-of-Spain Corporation is ongoing, focusing on eliminating gender bias in job designations and grading; and (2) following the 2017–19 negotiations between the Personnel Department and the Amalgamated Workers’ Union, it has engaged a consultant to conduct a job-evaluation exercise (JEE) to review these positions comprehensively. The Committee acknowledges the actions taken by the Employers’ Consultative Association (ECA) and its subsidiary, the Employers Solution Centre (ESC), in supporting equitable and gender-neutral collective bargaining practices, mainly through its training initiatives, including the Academy of Industrial Relations, which educates over 100 new and established professionals annually on topics related to equal remuneration, gender-neutral terminology, and the Equal Opportunity Act, 2000. However, the Committee notes the continued use of non-gender-neutral terminology in collective agreements.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to report on the progress made in this area, for example by: (i) providing a list of non-gender-neutral terms that have been replaced with gender-neutral alternatives; or (ii) submitting examples of collective agreements that now use gender-neutral terminology to describe specific categories of workers.

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