Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Democratic Republic of the Congo (Ratification: 1969)

Article 1 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. Legislation. For several years the Committee has been asking the Government to bring the Labour Code into line with the Convention. It notes that, as in previous reports, the Government merely states that it takes due note of the Committee’s comments and will incorporate them into the legislation when the Labour Code is next revised, and that the principle is applied in practice. The Committee recalls that section 86 of the Labour Code which provides that for equal conditions of work, qualifications and output, wages are equal for all workers irrespective of origin, sex or age, is narrower than the principle set out in the Convention. Not only does section 86 fail to reflect the concept of “work of equal value” but it is not applicable to all the components of remuneration as defined in Article 1(a) of the Convention, since it appears to exclude all emoluments that are additional to the “wage” whether they are components of remuneration as defined in section 7(h) of the Labour Code (commissions, cost of living allowances, bonuses, etc.) or not (health care, accommodation and accommodation allowances, transport allowances, statutory family allowances, travel costs and “emoluments granted solely to assist workers in performing their duties”). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the Labour Code so that it expressly enshrines the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and applies to all the components of remuneration as defined in Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken to this end, and to specify when the next revision of the Labour Code is scheduled to take place.

Family allowances. The Committee notes with interest the repeal of the Legislative Order No. 88-056 of 29 September 1988, which provided that a woman magistrate had no entitlement to family allowances if her spouse carried out an activity remunerated by the State entitling him to allowances amounting to not less than those of a magistrate. The Order has been replaced by Basic Act No. 06/20 of 10 October 2006 issuing the magistrates’ regulations, which provides that this restriction applies to all magistrates, both men and women, whose spouse carries on an activity remunerated by the Treasury, entitling him or her to allowances that are not less than those of a magistrate (section 25).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.