Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

1. The Committee notes with interest that while wages are determined and paid to workers according to the quantity, quality and social importance of their work, the amended Labour Code (No. 52/1989, section 111(2)) also requires employers to differentiate wages according to the complexity of the work involved and the conditions under which it is performed, the prerequisites of its performance, the personal ability of individual workers and their merit in the attained results of a worker's team and the organisation concerned. The Committee also notes the indications provided concerning the tariff system of remuneration, under which wages are set according to an evaluation of the quality and qualification demands of the work (using the criteria of complexity, difficulty and challenge) and of the working conditions (judged primarily by the criteria of harmful environment, exertion, possibly the location and social significance of the job). The Committee notes that the analytical method of evaluation of jobs is used for manual and technical-economic workers; and a similar method is used for the evaluation of general working conditions. The Committee would request the Government to furnish copies of the qualification catalogues (for manual work and for technical-economic and trade functions) prepared on the basis of these evaluations, together with corresponding wage scales; and to provide copies of any pertinent decrees issued by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and departmental ministries.

2. The Committee notes that the statistical data supplied in respect of a June 1984 inquiry (concerning the average wages of men and women in selected industries) and of a 1988 inquiry (covering 10 per cent of the workers in industry) disclose significant wage differentials between men and women workers. The Government indicates that the primary causes of the differentials are: differences in the amount of work (for the same qualifications and in the same wage level, women work less overtime and are more frequently absent); type and nature of the work (women perform less qualified, less arduous or less difficult work). The Government also points out that the stability of the relationship between men's and women's wages is caused primarily by the division of labour in the economy and the existence of so-called men's and women's occupations which is not always due to differences in physical or psychic ability but in some cases to tradition and possibly prejudice.

As concerns the references to physical strength - as a criterion for job evaluation and as a factor to explain the wage differential - the Committee would recall paragraphs 150-152 of its 1986 General Survey on Equal Remuneration where it drew attention to the need to ensure that the criteria for the appraisal of jobs do not undervalue the skills normally required for work that is, in practice, performed by women. By adopting evaluation criteria that do not favour one sex over the other and by applying them in a uniform manner, differences in wages resulting from traditional sterotypes with regard to the value of "women's work" are likely to be reduced. In relation to other factors which contribute to the wage differential, such as the predominance of women in low-skilled, low-level positions and inadequate education or training for non-traditional areas of employment, the Committee observes that the application of Convention No. 100 would be greatly assisted by such measures as the Government is taking concerning the training and employment of women, which were noted by the Committee in its previous comments under Convention No. 111. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on developments concerning the application of the principle of equal remuneration.