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

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Indonesia (Ratification: 1958)

Gender wage gap and occupational segregation. The Committee had previously noted from the statistical data of 2008 that wage inequalities existed in each region. The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government that, in February 2011, a wide gender wage gap was observed in many sectors, including in the agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing sector, where the gender wage gap was 48.4 per cent, and in the mining and quarrying sector which recorded a gender wage gap of 44.3 per cent. The statistics also reveal that occupational segregation persists in Indonesia and women continue to be under represented in higher paying jobs and senior management positions. The Committee also notes that in order to disseminate the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Guidelines of 2005, the Government established a tripartite task force by Decree No. 60/SJ/111/2011 on 16 March 2011, which, inter alia, has the responsibility of mapping out preventive measures on discrimination in the workplace. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken by the tripartite taskforce in order to disseminate the EEO Guidelines of 2005, and more particularly to address the gender wage gap in the private and public sectors, and the impact thereof. Recalling that wage inequalities are related to the segregation of men and women into certain sectors and occupations, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to improve the access of women to a wider range of job opportunities at all levels, including sectors in which they are currently absent or under-represented, with a view to reducing inequalities in remuneration that exist between men and women in the labour market.

Legislation. The Committee has been noting for a number of years that the Manpower Act (No. 13/2003), does not provide for equal remuneration for work of equal value, but rather contains a general equal opportunity provision (“any manpower shall have the same opportunity to get a job without discrimination” section 5) and a general equal treatment provision (“every worker/labourer has the right to receive equal treatment without discrimination from their employer” section 6), and in this regard provides less protection than the previous Manpower Act of 1997. The Committee recalls that these provisions, while important, are not sufficient to give effect to the Convention, as they do not include the concept of “work of equal value”. The Committee notes that the Government again merely refers to the existing provisions, without providing information on any steps taken in consultation with social partners to give full expression to the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in the Manpower Act. In the context of the wide gender wage gap and the occupational gender segregation, as well as the lack of other measures to fully apply the Convention, the Committee considers that giving full legislative effect to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value is of particular importance to ensuring effective application of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to take steps in order to review and amend the current legislation, including the Manpower Act (No. 13/2003) in order to give explicit legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for women and men for work of equal value and to provide information on any consultations held with social partners in this regard.

Discriminatory provisions. The Committee previously noted that Decree No. 37 of 1967 and Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 418/KPTS/EKKU/5/1981 provide for disparate treatment between men and women in relation to payment of employment-related benefits and asked the Government to clarify whether and how these instruments have been revised. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 37 of 1967 was amended and that the rules contained in the Decree are no longer applicable. The Government, however, does not indicate clearly whether Decree No. 37 of 1967 has been repealed and does not provide any information on revisions or amendments of Decree No. 418/KPTS/EKKU/5/1981. The Committee also previously expressed concern over the possible discriminatory impact of section 31(3) of the Marriage Act (No. 1/1974) on women’s employment-related benefits and allowances, which provides that the husband is the head of household. The Committee notes that the Government is currently conducting a study on the Marriage Act (No. 1/1974), involving all the stakeholders. The Committee asks the Government to indicate clearly whether Decree No. 37 of 1967 has been repealed and to provide information on any measures taken to revise or repeal Decree No. 418/KPTS/EKKU/5/1981. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on the results and impact of the study being conducted on the Marriage Act (No. 1/1974) and to take measures in order to ensure that women do not face direct or indirect discrimination in practice with respect to family allowances and employment-related benefits.

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