Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Poland (Ratification: 1954)

Assessment of the gender pay gap. The Committee is concerned that the gender pay gap calculated on the basis of average gross hourly earnings as reported by EUROSTAT has increased from 10 per cent in 2005 to 12 per cent in 2007. According to the Government’s report the gender pay gap continue to be widest as regards senior management positions. In 2005, women in such positions earned 13.2 per cent less than men in government employment and 12.6 per cent less in the private sector. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to address the existing gender pay gap in the private and public sectors and to continue to provide detailed statistical information on the earnings of men and women, as well as any available studies and reports on the gender pay gap and its evolution.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislation. The Committee recalls that section 18(3)(c)(1) provides that all workers have the right to equal remuneration for equal work and work of equal value, while section 18(3)(a)(1) provides for the principle of equal treatment as regards, inter alia, remuneration on a number of grounds, including sex. However, the Committee also notes from the Government’s report that section 11(2) of the Labour Code provides that workers shall have equal rights resulting from the performance of identical duties and that this shall particularly apply to the equal treatment of men and women in employment. The Committee recalls that the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value as set out in the Convention does not only apply to situations where men and women perform identical tasks or duties but that equal remuneration must be provided also to men and women performing different tasks or duties, as long as they involve work of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the abovementioned provisions of the Labour Code allow for equal pay claims to be brought by women where the work of the male comparator is of a different nature from that of the claimant.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee recalls that the Convention implies the use of a technique or method to establish the value of work with a view to determining remuneration in accordance with the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In this regard, Article 3 requires States, having ratified the Convention, to promote the development and use of objective job evaluation methods, free from gender-bias. Noting that the Government has not replied to the Committee’s previous comments on this matter, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the specific measures it intends to take to promote the development and use of objective job evaluation methods, with a view to promoting the Convention’s principle.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government regarding the role of the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number and nature of court cases on equal remuneration in the context of which labour inspectors acted as representatives of complainants or witnesses.

The Committee further notes the information concerning cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007 involving issues of equal remuneration. In a decision of 15 September 2006 (OSNP 2007/17-18/251), the Supreme Court held that an employee claiming compensation for infringement of the principle of equal treatment in respect of remuneration must prove that he or she performed the same work or work of equal value. Recalling that section 18(3)(b)(1) of the Labour Code stipulates that it is the employer’s duty to prove that an employee has not been discriminated against, the Committee asks the Government to elaborate on the applicable rules regarding the burden of proof in cases regarding unequal remuneration of men and women for work of equal value, following this Supreme Court decision of 15 September 2006. Please also continue to provide information on the evolving case law on equal pay for men and women for work of equal value, including indications on the number of such cases being actually brought.