CMNT_TITLE

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Japan (RATIFICATION: 1967)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) and the Japan Business Federation (NIPPON KEIDANREN) communicated with the Government’s report. It further notes the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN) received on 11 September 2023. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 1 to 4 of the Convention. Assessing and addressing the gender pay gap and its underlying causes, including legislative developments on disclosure of information on wages. The Committee welcomes the detailed statistical information provided by the Government concerning men’s and women’s earnings. It observes that, although the average gap in the earnings of men and women in all occupations has been decreasing since 1989 (39.4 per cent) it is still significant with an average gap of 22.4 per cent in 2021. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the JTUC–RENGO states that: (1) women’s wages amounted to 75.2 per cent of men’s wages in 2021 (a gender wage gap of 24.8 per cent); and (2) the gender wage gap is very high compared to other developed countries. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN) refers to statistical information from the National Tax Agency Survey (2021) according to which the average yearly salary of workers is 5.45 million yen for men (US$36,538,16) and 3.02 million yen for women (US$20,247,89). With respect to the underlying causes of the gender pay gap, the Committee further notes that: (1) the NIPPON KEIDANREN explains that the gender pay gap is mainly caused by differences in job rank and length of service and suggests improving the ratio of female executive or managers and reducing the gender gap in length of service; and (2) the ZENROREN attributes the gender pay gap to a range of factors, including the imposition of long working hours on men and precarious work on women based on the employment model which considers men as the breadwinner in the family.

Regarding the legal framework and its developments, the Committee welcomes the following measures taken by the Government to address some of the issues leading to the gender pay gap, including reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and occupational gender segregation: (1) the revision of the Child Care and Family Care Leave Act, in 2021, to establish a flexible child care leave framework (“postnatal father child care leave”), and similar revisions of laws and regulations in the public sector according to the Government’s report; and (2) the formulation in 2022 of the “Plan for Female Digital Human Resource Development” to promote labour mobility, which includes subsidies for employers who work to convert non-regular workers (who are mainly women) into regular workers, and improve their wages. The Committee recalls that the Act on the Promotion of Women’s Active Engagement in Professional Life No. 64 of 2015, (hereinafter “the Women’s Advancement Promotion Act”) requires private-sector employers with more than 300 regularly employed workers to identify and analyse the status of the active participation of female workers, including the differences between women and men in the ratio of management positions and length of service, which are considered as principal drivers of the wage gap between men and women, and to develop action plans including setting numerical targets based on such analyses. The Committee notes with interest the revision of the Women’s Advancement Promotion Act, by Act No. 24 of 2019 which: (1) extends the obligation of analysing the active participation of female workers to employers of more than 100 regularly employed workers; and (2) provides that the information disclosed will contribute to enhance work-life balance for female workers. In addition, the Committee notes with satisfaction that, in July 2022, the Women’s Advancement Promotion Act was amended by Ministerial Ordinance of MHLW No. 104 of 2022, to require private employers with more than 300 regularly employed workers to disclose “differences in wages between men and women” in addition to the 2015 obligation to analyse the active participation of female workers. The Committee observes that the JTUC–RENGO reiterates that this measure is limited (as approximately nine out of ten enterprises in Japan are medium or small-sized) and suggests extending this obligation to all employers regardless of the scale of their business. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the same obligation is imposed on the public sector.

As regard measures to collect data on wage gaps in the public sector, the Government also indicates that: (1) in December 2022, the system based on the Women’s Advancement Promotion Act was revised, and the “difference between male and female employees’ wages” was newly positioned as an item for essential status monitoring, analysis and information publication at each national and local government agencies; and (2) the information will be made public in 2023.

Finally, the Committee notes that, in its observations, the NIPPON KEIDANREN indicates that: (1) it organized seminars and shared good practices to encourage men to take childcare leave and better balance work–life obligations; (2) it has been supporting companies by providing seminars and human resource development programs with the aim of increasing the share of female executive to more than 30 per cent by 2030; and (3) it is publishing an annual position paper calling on companies to review and improve the treatment of employees with reference to Government guidelines and court precedents to ensure fair treatment regardless of employment status. Given the persistence of a significant gender pay gap in the country, the Committee asks the Government to continue to take proactive measures, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, with a view to reducing the gender pay gap by addressing its underlying causes, including horizontal and vertical occupational gender segregation, issues relating to the length of service and to the reconciliation of work and family. It asks the Government to continue to provide: (i) information on any follow-up given to the suggestion of the JTUC-RENGO to extend the obligation of disclosing wage differences to workplaces with less than 300 employees; and statistical information, disaggregated by sector of the economy, on the earnings of men and women and the gender wage gap to monitor the progress achieved.

Articles 1(b) and 2(2)(a). Work of equal value. Legislation. With regard to the legal framework, the Committee notes once again the Government’s reference in its report to the following provisions: (1) section 4 of the Labour Standards Act, which provides that “an employer shall not engage in discriminatory treatment of a woman as compared to a man with respect to wages by reason of the worker being a woman”; and (2) sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (Act No. 113 of 1972) (EEOL), as amended, which prohibit inter alia discrimination on the basis of sex in terms of loans for housing. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) as long as the payroll system does not allow discrimination in wages between men and women based only on the sex of the worker, it meets the requirements of the Convention; and (2) this interpretation has been retained since the ratification of the Convention. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s views. However, it is bound to reiterate that the protection against sex-based wage discrimination in the national legal framework is too limited because it does not capture the concept of work of equal value, which is fundamental to address the gender pay gap and tackle horizontal and vertical occupational gender segregation in the labour market. In that regard, the Committee recalls that, due to historical attitudes and stereotypes regarding women’s aspirations, preferences and capabilities, certain jobs are held predominantly or exclusively by women (such as in caring professions) and others by men (such as in construction). Women are also often concentrated at the lower levels of certain enterprises, sectors or occupations. Often “female jobs” are undervalued in comparison with work of equal value performed by men when determining wage rates. The concept of work of equal value permits a broad scope of comparison between jobs. It includes but goes beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature which is nevertheless of equal value overall. The concept of “equal value” requires some method of measuring and comparing the relative value of different jobs. There needs to be an examination of the respective tasks involved, undertaken on the basis of entirely objective and non-discriminatory criteria to avoid the assessment being tainted by gender bias. While the Convention does not prescribe any specific method for such an examination, Article 3 of the Convention presupposes the use of appropriate techniques for objective job evaluation, comparing factors such as skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions (see 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 673–676 and 695, see also “Promoting Equity: Gender-neutral job evaluation for equal pay – A step-by-step guide”, pages 25-41). The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the current legislation with a view to establishing the right to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal ‘value” as enshrined in the Convention as well as appropriate monitoring and enforcement procedures and adequate remedies. It asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any measures taken or envisaged in this regard; and (ii) any judicial or administrative decisions relating to pay inequalities between women and men.

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