Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1953)

The Committee notes the observations received on 31 August 2011 from the National Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CNUS), the Autonomous Confederation of Workers’ Unions (CASC) and the National Confederation of Dominican Workers (CNTD), reporting that although more women than men undergo higher education, there is a 27 per cent wage differential between men and women. The Committee asks the Government to send its comments on this matter.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments in a number of important aspects. It is therefore bound to reiterate its previous observation on the following matters:

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the tripartite committee appointed by the Labour Advisory Council in July 2007 had drafted an amendment to section 194 of the Labour Code with a view to including in the legislation the concept of equal remuneration for men and women for “work of equal value”. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not provide any information on the progress made with this draft text. It recalls that it has been commenting on this subject for many years and that section 194 in its current wording does not give full effect to the Convention as it does not include the concept of “work of equal value”.

The Committee also notes that, in the same way as section 194, section 3(4) of Act No. 41-08 of 16 January 2008 on the public service provides for: “equal wages for equal work, in terms of capacity, performance and seniority, irrespective of the person performing the work”. Similarly, article 62(9) in fine, of the new Constitution, adopted on 26 January 2010, lays down that “the payment of equal wages for work of equal value is guaranteed, without discrimination based on sex or other grounds and under identical conditions of capacity, effectiveness and seniority”. The Committee notes that by defining the concept of “work of equal value” in terms of “identical conditions of capacity, effectiveness and seniority”, the constitutional definition of the concept appears to be narrower than the term used in the Convention, as it should be possible to compare jobs carried out under different conditions, but which are nevertheless of the same value. The Committee notes with regret that the Government did not take the opportunity of these legislative and constitutional reforms to reflect the principle of the Convention fully.

The Committee wishes to refer in this respect to its 2006 general observation in which it emphasizes that the concept of equal remuneration for “work of equal value” includes but goes beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, the “same” or “similar” work, and urges governments to take the necessary steps to amend their legislation to provide not only for equal remuneration for equal, the same or similar work, but also to prohibit pay discrimination that occurs in situations where men and women perform different work that is nevertheless of equal value. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the amendment of section 194 fully reflects the principle of the Convention and is adopted by the National Congress in the very near future, and to provide a copy once it has been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide fuller information on wage inequalities in the public sector and on the measures taken to bring section 3(4)of Act No. 41-08, the wording of which is identical to that of section 194 of the Labour Code, into full conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to adopt the necessary measures in the near future.