Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Honduras (Ratification: 1956)

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 1 October 2020 concerning the compilation of statistics and consultations with the social partners and the Government’s reply received on 6 November 2020.

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government on the matters raised in the direct request addressed to it, and reiterates the content of its observation adopted in 2019, which is repeated as follows.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) and COHEP, sent with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the COHEP, received on 2 September 2019 and the response of the Government received on 9 October 2019.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Gender pay gap. Statistics. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the progress it had made to reduce the gender pay gap. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that since 2018, the pay gap has been more favourable to women in the private and public sectors, given that women have higher levels of schooling and work more in urban areas. In this regard, the Government provides a set of data disaggregated by sex, including statistics on: average income by branch of activity, minimum wages by branch of activity, and minimum wages by occupation (levels of responsibility). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it lacks information to be able to conduct an analysis, explaining that the only source of information on the labour market is the permanent household survey of National Institute of Statistics (INE). The Committee notes that, in their observations, the CGT and CTH indicate that, in practice, significant gender pay gaps do exist, particularly in the public sector, and that it would be important to make a comparison by position. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, the COHEP indicates that the statistical data provided by the Government needs to be reviewed and refers to a series of surveys conducted by businesses on the participation of women in the workplace (the report on women in business management “Mujeres en la gestión empresarial” and the Market Systems Survey Analysis “Encuesta de diagnóstico sistemas de mercado” and the projects on Human Rights Due Diligence of Companies in relation to the Supply Chain “La debida diligencia empresarial en materia de derechos humanos en relación con la cadena de suministros”). COHEP notes that 98 per cent of companies consulted as part of the project on Human Rights Due Diligence of Companies in relation to the Supply Chain provide equal pay to men and women for the performance of the same work. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the data provided do not allow the comparison of the pay of men and women in different positions and at levels of responsibility by which may nonetheless be of equal value. In so doing, the Committee draws to the attention of the Government that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value not only requires equal pay for the same work but also equal remuneration for jobs that may be entirely different but nevertheless of equal value (see 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 667 and 679). In order to be able to conduct a detailed analysis and with full knowledge of the facts on the gender pay gap, the Committee requests the Government to make every effort to compile the most comprehensive statistics possible on the level of pay for men and women in the private and public sectors. In this regard, the Committee refers in particular to its general observation concerning the application of the Convention adopted in 1998.

Article 1(b). Work of equal value. Legislation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 367 of the Labour Code and section 44 of the Equal Opportunities for Women Act (LIOM), as well as Decree No. 27-2015, do not ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, and requested the Government to report on any legislative amendments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (1) labour law reform begins with the submission to the Economic and Social Council (CES) of the intention to reform or amend the Labour Code; and (2) the National Institute for Women (INAM) has initiated a proposal to reform the LIOM and a number of meetings between representatives of the various state institutions and of civil society have been held on that matter; and (3) the highest-ranking authorities have been informed so that they can begin taking the necessary measures to bring the labour legislation into line with international Conventions. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, the COHEP indicates that no employers’ association has been convened to analyse the LIOM reform, and that it has not been submitted to the CES. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the legislation duly reflects the principle of equal pay for men and women for jobs that are of a different nature, but are of equal value, and requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Committee also recalls the importance of consultations with the social partners in the process of labour law reform, and trusts that the Government will ensure this occurs in relation to any measures implementing the principle of the Convention.

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