Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Gibraltar

Gender remuneration gap. The Committee notes from the Employment Survey Report published by the Statistics Office that the gender remuneration gap for 2009, based on average monthly earnings for full-time jobs was 27 per cent. Based on average weekly earnings for full-time employees, the gap increases to 33 per cent. The Committee notes that in some industries the gap is particularly high (based on average monthly earnings for full-time jobs), including in financial intermediation (46.4 per cent) and health and social work (40 per cent), and in occupations such as managers and senior officials (29 per cent). Noting the wide gender remuneration gap, and that the Government provides no information in this regard in response to its previous request, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to analyse and address the causes of the gender remuneration gap, including studies and surveys, and to provide detailed information in this regard. Please also continue to provide information on the earnings of men and women in the various industries and occupations, in both the public and private sectors.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted previously the provisions of the Equal Opportunities Act, 2006, related to equal remuneration for work of equal value, and asked for information on the implementation and enforcement thereof. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no relevant court cases or violations detected regarding the principle of the Convention. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide specific information regarding the practical implementation and enforcement of section 31 of the Equal Opportunities Act. Noting the absence of cases and violations detected or reported, the Committee asks the Government to take specific measures to promote awareness of the equal remuneration provisions and the dispute resolution procedures available, among workers, employers and their representatives, as well as government officials. Please provide specific information on the measures taken to enhance the capacity of the responsible authorities, including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials, to identify and address issues concerning section 31 of the Equal Opportunities Act.

Article 2. Collective agreements, minimum wages. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to section 63(2)(a) and (b) of the Equal Opportunities Act, terms contained in a collective agreement or any rule made by an employer are void where “the making of the collective agreement is, by reason of the inclusion of the term, unlawful by virtue of this Act” or “the term or rule is included or made in furtherance of an act which is unlawful by virtue of this Act”. Noting that the Government provides no information in response to its previous request, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether section 63 renders void terms of collective agreements or terms or rules of undertakings that violate the right to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee would also welcome receiving copies of collective agreements that contain specific clauses regarding equal remuneration for work of equal value. Noting that the Conditions of Employment (Standard Minimum Wage) Order, 2001, as amended in 2008, excludes domestic workers, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number of men and women employed as domestic workers, and how it is ensured that the work of these workers is not undervalued.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes that the Government has provided no information regarding the promotion and use of methods for the objective evaluation of jobs, as previously requested. Noting that the Equal Opportunities Act refers to notions of “work rated as equivalent” and “work of equal value”, the Committee asks the Government to take measures to promote the development and use of objective job evaluation methods, and draws the Government’s attention to its 2006 general observation in this regard.