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

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes the comments by the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers Union (LJEWU) which were attached to the Government’s report.

Article 1 of the Convention. Legislation on equal remuneration. In response to its previous comments regarding the absence of legislation providing for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no developments in this regard. The Committee is concerned that particularly in such a highly gender segregated labour market (see comments with respect to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)), the absence of an explicit right to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value undermines the implementation of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the rights regarding wages arising from the Wage Boards and collective agreements appear to be limited to equal wages for the same or substantially the same work, which is narrower than the principle set out in the Convention. Recalling its 2006 general observation, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to give full legislative effect to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, and to provide information on measures taken in this regard.

Additional emoluments. The Committee had noted previously the practice by certain employers in rural areas of providing workers with payments in kind, such as meals, which were only provided to male workers. The Committee notes that the Government again indicates that there are no legal provisions for payment of wages in kind, but acknowledges that most of the workers in the plantation sector are provided with free housing. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the broad definition of “remuneration” enshrined in Article 1(a) of the Convention is to capture all elements that a worker may receive for his or her work including additional allowances paid in kind, such as meals and housing facilities. The Committee again asks the Government to take measures to ensure that in practice all emoluments, whether in cash or in kind, are granted or paid without discrimination based on the sex of the worker, and to provide specific information on steps taken in this regard.

Article 2. Wage boards. The Committee recalls that wage rates are set for a number of sectors through the wage boards. While specific rates based on gender no longer appear to be set in the wage board ordinances, the Committee notes that classification of wages in various trades is differentiated based on the classification of categories such as “unskilled”, “semi-skilled” and “skilled”. The Government has not provided any information in response to its previous request regarding how it is ensured that in determining minimum wages rates, the work performed by women is not being undervalued in comparison to that of men who are performing different work and using different skills, and that the procedures adopted are free from gender bias. The Government has also not provided any statistical information regarding the number of women and men in the different categories of the various sectors and trades, as previously requested, which would assist the Government and the Committee to assess the nature and extent of wage inequalities. The Committee recalls that there is often a tendency to set lower wages for sectors predominantly employing women, and therefore that special attention is needed in setting sectoral wages to ensure that the rates fixed are free from gender bias. The fact that the minimum wage rates no longer distinguish between men and women is not sufficient to ensure that the process is free from gender bias. The Committee also notes that, in defining different jobs and occupations in the wage board ordinances, sex-specific terminology remains in use in many cases, reinforcing stereotypes regarding whether certain jobs should be carried out by men or women, and thus increasing the likelihood of wage inequality. For example, terms such as “chemical men” and “machine women” are used, as well as “bleaching operatives (males)” and “mending operatives (females)”, and should be avoided. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the specific criteria used to determine wage rates fixed by the wage boards. Please also provide information on the concrete steps taken to ensure that rates of wages fixed by the wage boards are based on objective criteria, free from gender bias, so that the work in sectors in which women are predominantly employed is not being undervalued compared to sectors in which men are predominantly employed. The Committee also asks the Government to ensure that gender-neutral terminology is used in defining the various jobs and occupations in the wage board ordinances. The Committee also urges the Government to compile and analyse statistics on the current wage rates for men and women in the different categories of the various sectors and trades to enable it to gain more detailed knowledge of the nature and scope of the remaining wage inequalities and to be able to assess progress made in addressing such inequalities.

Wage policy. The Committee previously noted the Government’s intention to review the wage policy, to simplify the procedures for wage setting, and to establish a national minimum wage. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Cadre and Salary Commission is mandated to determine and revise the cadre and salary structure in the public service. The Committee also notes the statement of the LJEWU that these commissions hear the views of trade unions before recommending rates of pay. The Committee notes further that the public administration circulars on restructuring of public service salaries, appended to the Government’s report, do not indicate if or how the principle of the Convention is taken into account in the wage determination process. The Government also states that “no discriminative policy exists in the public service except in a few blue-collar jobs”. With respect to the private sector, the Government states that tripartite consultations are continuing in the context of the National Labour Advisory Council, including with regard to a national minimum wage and developing a national wage policy, but no final decision has been taken. Noting the Government’s acknowledgement that there is a discriminatory wage policy with respect to some public service jobs, the Committee asks the Government to provide further details regarding such policies and to take steps to abolish them. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the progress made in developing a new wage policy, and to provide information on how the policy will promote and ensure the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in both the public and private sectors.

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