Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

Gender remuneration gap. The Committee notes that, according to Eurostat, the average gross hourly earnings gap between men and women was 25.9 per cent in 2009. It also notes from the Government’s report that a greater increase in men’s earnings in 2010 led to an increase in the gap between the average wage of men and the average wage of women, also increasing to 25.9 per cent. According to the 2010 statistics provided by the Government, the gap between the median wages of men and women amounted to 21 per cent in the private sector and 15.3 per cent in the public sector. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to address the significant gender remuneration gap and its underlying causes, such as occupational job segregation and gender stereotypes.

Scope of comparison. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that the Labour Code limits the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value to workers employed by the same employer. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the application of the principle of equal remuneration for equal work or work of equal value can only be secured within the framework of a single employer. The Government states that there are significant differences in the standards of living between the different regions of the country and that this is reflected in the wage rates applied. It states that it is necessary to take into account the differences in the cost of living according to the regions. The Government considers that the application of the principle of equal remuneration between various employers would limit geographical and professional work mobility and result in the weakening of the basic functions of the labour market. The Committee wishes to recall that the Convention does not require the abolition of differences in the general wage level between various regions, sectors or even enterprises where such differences apply equally to men and women (General Survey on equal remuneration, 1986, paragraph 22). The Committee, however, draws the Government’s attention to the fact that limiting the scope of comparison between jobs to the same employer or establishment entails the risk that in situations where women are heavily concentrated in certain sectors of the economy or in certain jobs the possibility for comparison between two different jobs, in order to determine whether those jobs are overall of equal value, will be insufficient. The Committee therefore asks the Government to consider extending the application of the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value beyond the level of the establishment and the enterprise, and to provide information on any measures taken in this respect, in collaboration with workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in many fields of work, it is practically impossible to assess whether specific employees with different employers carry out the same work or whether the differences in their remuneration are partly based on the different nature of the work or the tasks undertaken. The Committee recalls that the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value encompasses not only the same work or the same tasks, but also includes work that is of an entirely different nature, but which is nevertheless of equal value. In this respect, the Committee emphasizes the importance of the use of objective job evaluation methods in effectively applying the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, since in order to establish whether different jobs are of equal value, there has to be an examination of the respective tasks involved on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria. In this respect, the Committee recalls that section 110 of the Labour Code defines “the same (equal) work or work to which equal value has been attributed” on the basis of criteria such as complexity, responsibility, degree of effort, working conditions and working efficiency. The Committee therefore once again 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.

Public service. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the entry into force of Act No. 218/2002 (the Service Act) once again has been postponed until 1 January 2012. The Committee also notes the observations of the Czech and Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS) according to which the changes in the remuneration of employees in the public services and administration introduced by the Government from 1 January 2011, within a context of budgetary reductions of 10 per cent for 2011, violate the principles of “equal pay for equal work or work of equal value” and “equal treatment as regards remuneration” set by the Labour Code and are in contradiction with European Union law. According to CMKOS, with the exception of teaching staff, the possibility for employers in the public service to apply two different systems of remuneration, i.e. existing salary tables and rates and salary tables with flexible margins and contractual rates which could be negotiated, would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment in remuneration. In reply, the Government states that the possibility of using a specific method for determining the salary rate (salary rate in the range) for employees in the public service, excluding teachers, and the possibility for negotiating “contract wages” does not constitute a violation of the Convention. According to the Government, this new remuneration system reinforces the powers of public employers in determining the salaries individually, without exonerating them from applying the general principles set by law, such as equal treatment in remuneration and equal remuneration for work of equal value. Noting the trade union’s observations and the Government’s reply, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures that, when determining wages under the new remuneration system for public servants, female and male employees performing equal work or work of equal value receive equal remuneration. The Committee hopes that the Service Act will enter into force in the near future and asks the Government to provide information on its implementation with respect to the principle of the Convention.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the violations of section 110 of the Labour Code detected by labour inspectors. It notes, however, that the labour inspection services have not yet detected any case of discrimination in remuneration on the basis of sex. The Committee would like to point out that the absence of cases identified by the labour inspectors or the absence of complaints does not necessarily mean that there is no wage discrimination between men and women in practice, as such discrimination may be difficult to identify or prove, and the workers may not always be aware of their rights and the means of redress available under the legislation. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to promote public awareness of the legal provisions on equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value and the procedures and remedies available where there has been a violation thereof, and to assist complainants in such procedures. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide information on any violations of the principle of equal remuneration for women and men for work of equal value detected by, or brought to the attention of, the labour inspection services, indicating the nature of the case, any sanctions imposed and the remedies provided.