Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government concerning judicial decisions under the Equal Pay Act, 1970. It requests the Government to supply such information in its future reports, and in particular on the outcome of the case of Clark and others v. Bexley Heath Authority, which has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

2. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government concerning the Committee's previous request for an indication of the extent to which job evaluation has been introduced. In this respect, the Committee notes that while official data is not available on this question, there appears to be a steady growth of interest in job evaluation arising from the need for organisations to rationalise their pay systems and to free them from sex discrimination.

3. Referring to its previous direct request, the Committee has noted that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) intends to appoint several more experts, in addition to the 12 currently on its panel, because of the upsurge in the number of reports required. The Committee has also noted that, on average, the time taken from the tribunal issuing a requirement for an expert's report and the report's submission to the tribunal has reduced significantly in recent years.

4. Referring to its observation, the Committee has noted the information and explanations of the Government concerning other matters raised by the TUC in its communication of December 1990. The Government states that it recognises the TUC's concern that employees in all-female establishments should be permitted to compare their work with that of men notionally or actually employed at the same or unconnected establishments. It points out, however, that if an employer employs no men at all, then the only way of measuring what a "notional" man would be paid would be by reference to the wages paid by other unconnected employers to men doing the same type of work, quite possibly in different geographical areas. In such cases, it would be impossible to determine how much of any pay inequality resulted from different markets, efficiency, profitability, etc.; and accordingly, the Government cannot see why an employee in one firm should receive the same wage as an employee working in another unconnected firm, irrespective of the difference of sex. The Committee has also noted that while the proposals of the (Great Britain) Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) do not include any recommendations for equal pay comparisons with a "notional" or "hypothetical" man, the EOC for Northern Ireland has included such a recommendation in its comments on the operation of the equal pay legislation which, like all recommendations of the two EOCs, are being considered by the Government. As the Committee has stated in its observation, it hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to respond to the proposals of the EOCs.

5. Referring also to its observation, the Committee has noted the TUC's statement that the Government has been deficient in complying with Article 4 of the Convention, since there have been no further meetings with trade union and employers' representatives concerning ways to improve the application of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate, in its next report, that further measures have been taken to cooperate with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.