Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2015, publiée 105ème session CIT (2016)

Convention (n° 100) sur l'égalité de rémunération, 1951 - Serbie (Ratification: 2000)

Autre commentaire sur C100

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) annexed to the Government’s report which was received on 18 November 2014.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Assessing the gender pay gap and addressing its underlying causes. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the gender wage gap is around 17 per cent. The Government also mentions a study published by the Foundation for the Advancement of Economics (FREN) in 2013, which indicates that the adjusted gender wage gap is 11 per cent (7.5 per cent in the public sector), whereas the unadjusted gap (average difference between men and women wages) amounts to only 3.3 per cent because women who work are better qualified than men who work. The study also indicates that women face high barriers at the point of entry in the labour market, so they need to be better qualified than men on average to be able to access employment in the first place, and it concludes that the relatively low gender wage gap is due to the low participation of women in the labour market. In its observations, the CATUS points out that, although discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or maternity is prohibited, some employers are reluctant to recruit young women who are likely to get married or become mothers. The Committee further notes that the Government points out that no methodology is precise enough to determine the causes of the gender pay gap and also indicates that differences in wages result from differences in men’s and women’s economic activities and employment and the existence of typical “male” or “female” occupations as well as differences relating to access to ownership and resources, contracts of employment, working hours, levels of positions and regions. The CATUS asserts that the gender pay gap is due to horizontal occupational gender segregation, with more women in education and social protection for instance, which results from social traditions and a general decline of employment opportunities. The Government also indicates that rural women face specific problems, including a high unemployment rate, few employment opportunities outside their households and outside the agricultural sector, work overload on family farms, absence of income or social protection. The Committee notes the Government’s general statement that it is implementing studies and measures, that it organizes inspections, that it participates in relevant international seminars and that it promotes equal pay. It also notes the adoption of the National Strategy for the Improvement of the Status of Women and Promotion of Gender Equality for 2009–15 (CEDAW/C/SRB/CO/2-3, 30 July 2013, para. 5). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to address effectively horizontal and vertical occupational segregation between men and women and promote the participation of women in the labour market in a wider range of occupations, including through awareness raising and sensitization to overcome gender stereotypes. Please provide information on any measures taken in this respect, including measures addressing the specific situation of rural women, whether in the framework of the National Strategy for the Improvement of the Status of Women and Promotion of Gender Equality for 2009–15 or otherwise, and the results achieved. Please also continue to provide specific data on the earnings of men and women both in the private and the public sectors and on the evolution of the gender pay gap.

Article 1(b). Work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee notes the adoption of the Gender Equality Act in December 2009 (Official Gazette, No. 104/09). It notes that an unofficial English translation of section 17 of the Act refers to the right to equal remuneration for work of equal value “with the employer” (like section 104 of the Labour Code), whereas the Government when referring to section 17 in its report, mentions “equal pay for equal work or work of equal value in the same establishment”. The Committee recalls that section 104 of the Labour Code further defines “work of equal value” as “the work for which the same educational level, same working ability, responsibility as well as physical and intellectual works are needed”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the expression “with the employer” in section 17 of the Gender Equality Act and section 104 of the Labour Code means “with any employers” or “with the same employer”. Given the occupational gender segregation, the Committee requests the Government to review the definition of “work of equal value” set out in section 104 of the Labour Code to ensure that equal remuneration for men and women is also provided when the jobs to be compared do not require the same level of education, working ability, responsibility as well as physical and intellectual work, but are nevertheless overall of equal value.

Enforcement. The Committee welcomes the detailed information provided by the Government on the work of the labour inspectorate and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality on gender equality issues. It notes however that this information does not relate to equal remuneration for work of equal value but rather to gender discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the number of cases of wage discrimination detected by the labour inspectors as well as the number of claims dealt with by them, by the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality or any other competent authority, including extracts of relevant reports, and their outcomes. The Committee also requests the Government to provide specific information on any activities carried out or envisaged by these institutions to foster understanding of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value among workers and employers and their organizations, labour inspectors, judges and other relevant target groups. Please also indicate whether any cases concerning violations of the Convention’s principle have been decided by the courts.