Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been asking the Government to improve the application of the Convention, including by reviewing Law No. 13/2003 concerning Manpower (Manpower Act), with a view to giving legal expression to the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value, because the Manpower Act, read together with the Explanatory Notes on the Law, only provides, in general terms, for equal opportunity (section 5) and equal treatment (section 6) without discrimination based on sex. The Committee considered that such general provisions, while important, were not sufficient to give effect to the Convention, as they do not include the concept of “work of equal value”. The Committee also recalls that in its previous observation, it welcomed section 11 of the Regulation No. 78 of 2015 on Wages, which provides that “every worker is entitled to equal wage for work of equal value”. It however noted that the provision is formulated in general terms and no longer refers to non-discrimination between men and women. The Committee therefore asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the manner in which sections 5 and 6 of the Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower and section 11 of Regulation No. 78 of 2015 are being applied in practice, including any violations specifically concerning the principle of equal remuneration between men and women for work of equal value detected by, or brought to the attention of, the labour inspection services, and any action taken to remedy those violations; and (2) any administrative or judicial decisions applying the principle of the Convention. The Committee also encouraged the Government to consider, as soon as the opportunity arises, reviewing and amending the Manpower Act to give explicit legislative expression to the principle of the Convention, and to provide information on any consultations held with the social partners to this end.

The Committee notes that in its report the Government indicates that there have been no cases of wage discrimination based on gender. The Government also indicates that the application of the principle of the Convention is ensured in practice through: (1) the obligation of companies to set up wage structures and scales applying to their employees and inform them about such structures and scales; and (2) the provision of administrative sanctions in case of non-compliance. The Government reports that, as of 2019, 9,602 companies were preparing the wage structure and scale and that no difference was found between men and women in the wage structures and scales examined. The Committee also notes that the Government, in collaboration with the social partners and the ILO, is promoting the implementation of international labour standards by export-oriented companies in the garment sector

While noting the Government’s indication that no wage discrimination between men and women was found in the wage structure and scale of the companies it examined, the Committee notes that no information is provided on how the principle of equal remuneration for “work of equal value” between men and women is ensured in the design of the wage structure and scale. The Committee recalls that the concept of “work of equal value” requires going beyond ensuring equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work and also encompasses equal remuneration for work that is of an entirely different nature but is nevertheless of “equal value”. This is fundamental given the occupational sex segregation in the labour market due to historical attitudes and stereotypes regarding women’s aspirations, preferences and capabilities, which has resulted in women holding predominantly certain jobs, such as in caring professions. Often these “female jobs” are undervalued in comparison with work of equal value performed by men when determining wage rates (See General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 673). In light of the above, the Committee asks the Government: (i) to indicate how it is ensured that the procedures adopted in determining wages (including wage increases) are free from gender bias, and that the work performed by women is not being undervalued in comparison to that of men who are performing different work and using different skills while charged with different responsibilities under different working conditions; (ii) to provide information on measures adopted or envisaged in order to ensure the application of the principle of the Convention in the design of wage structures and scales; and (iii) to supply information on any specific measures adopted to raise awareness about the principle of the Convention among government officials, employers and workers and their organizations, in particular in the garment sector. The Committee also encourages the Government to consider reviewing and amending the Manpower Act to give explicit legislative expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, in consultation with the social partners, and asks the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2(2)(a). Discriminatory provisions with respect to benefits and allowances. For more than ten years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that section 31(3) of Law No. 1/1974 concerning Marriage, which identifies the husband as the head of the family, may have a discriminatory impact on women’s employment-related benefits and allowances due to the fact that women in the workforce are assumed to be either single or seeking a supplementary income and are often not entitled to family allowances. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 6 of the Manpower Act and section 11 of the Regulation No. 78 of 2015 on Wages, which have been mentioned above, and explains that more detailed provisions regarding wage components can be arranged through employment agreements, company regulations or collective labour agreements. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it “continues to strive to ensure that work agreements, company regulations or collective labour agreements do not contain regulations with lower standards than stipulated in laws and regulations”. The Committee further notes the Government‘s explanation that the Marriage Act is not used as a reference when regulating work relations. The Committee recalls that differential treatment in respect of remuneration is often linked to the express and implied assumption that the man is the “breadwinner” or the “head of the household” for the purpose of receiving certain allowances or benefits and notes the possibility of allowing both spouses to choose who would benefit from such allowances, rather than starting from the point that they should systematically be paid to the man (2012 General survey paragraph 693). In light of all the above, the Committee encourages the Government to gather information, in collaboration with the social partners, on women’s access in practice to family allowances and employment-related benefits, and to provide information in this regard. In the meanwhile, the Committee asks the Government to inform about any measures taken to ensure that women do not face direct or indirect discrimination with respect to family allowances and employment-related benefits.

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