Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1971)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the points raised in the previous direct request.

1. The Committee notes a number of relevant judgements transmitted by the Government with its report. As concerns the case of Clark and others v. Bexley Health Authority, in which the employers relied on the "material factor" that they had no choice in the matter of salary, because they were obliged to pay their staff neither more nor less than the salaries authorised by the Secretary of State for Health, the Committee notes that on 29 October 1987 the High Court reversed the tribunal's decision and referred the cases back to the industrial tribunal for them to be argued on their merits.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply relevant judicial decisions on the Equal Pay Act, and in particular on the developments in the case of Clark and others v. Bexley Health Authority.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Government did not envisage any further measures to encourage the spread of job evaluation schemes. It notes from the Government's latest report that the Government believes that pay is essentially a matter for the parties concerned, but that the legislation requiring equal pay for work of equal value itself provides an important incentive to employers to operate job evaluation schemes, and that in practice there seems to be a steady growth of interest in job evaluation arising from the need for organisations to rationalise payment systems and free them of sex discrimination.

The Committee requests the Government to include with its next report information on the number and type of organisations that have introduced job evaluation systems in recent years. In this respect, the Committee refers to the data made available through the yearly New Earnings Surveys, which show that the average wage differential between men and women has remained constant since 1975, and requests the Government to indicate whether the review of the legislation carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission has led to the adoption of measures to promote the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration, through the improvement and further development of job evaluation schemes or otherwise.

3. In its previous comments the Committee requested information on the number of experts on the panel for the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), which examines complaints on job evaluations and on the average time from submission of complaints to their completion. It notes from the report that there are 15 experts on the panel, and that the average time between a tribunal asking ACAS to nominate an expert to submission of his or her report is ten months. In Northern Ireland, it notes that there are six experts on the Labour Relations Agency Panel, and that in the four cases so far carried out the time has varied from 12 to 41 months. The Committee also notes the comments by the TUC that this information confirms that this system introduces inordinate delays into equal value proceedings. Please continue to provide information on the workings of this system.

4. The Committee notes from the Government's report that a further tripartite meeting on equal pay matters, following the one held in May 1987, would not be useful at this stage, but that employers' and workers' representatives will have an opportunity to convey their views on the Equal Opportunities Commission's report. Please supply further information in the next report on measures taken, in pursuance of Article 4 of the Convention, in co-operation with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention.