Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Trinidad and Tobago (Ratification: 1970)

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Discrimination based on sex. For a number of years, the Committee has been expressing concern at the discriminatory nature of several provisions relating to married female police officers, and particularly: (1) Regulation 52 of the Police Commission Regulations, which provides that the appointment of a married female police officer may be terminated on the ground that her family obligations are affecting the efficient performance of her duties; and (2) section 14(2) of the Civil Service Regulations which requires a female officer who marries to report the fact of her marriage to the Public Service Commission. It requested the Government to revoke Regulation 52 of the Police Commission Regulations and amend section 14(2) of the Civil Service Regulations to eliminate any potentially discriminatory impact based on sex. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in January 2019, the Police Service Commission decided on the revocation of Regulation 52 and that new draft Regulations, omitting Regulation 52, are currently under review by the Police Service Commission and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Regarding the amendment of section 14(2) of the Civil Service Regulations, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that a new Civil Service Act and Regulations, omitting section 14(2), have been drafted by the Personnel Department and are currently under review by the relevant stakeholders. Welcoming these positive developments, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will without further delay make every possible effort to effectively: (i) revoke Regulation 52 of the Police Commission Regulations; and (ii) amend or revoke section 14(2) of the Civil Service Regulations in order to eliminate any potentially discriminatory impact based on sex. It asks the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, in particular with respect to the adoption of the new draft Police Commission Regulations and the new draft Civil Service Act and Regulations, and to submit copies once adopted.

Articles 2 and 3. Equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women. Public service. The Committee previously noted the persistent occupational gender segregation in the public service, as well as the sex-specific terminology used in the denomination of offices in the Schedule, Parts I–VI, of the Civil Service Regulations. It requested the Government to amend the legislation to ensure that it only contains gender-neutral terminology. The Committee notes, from the detailed statistical information provided by the Government, the persistence, and in some instances the aggravation, of horizontal and vertical segregation in the public sector. Indeed, while women represent 80.5 per cent of personnel in the judicial and legal service and 76.4 per cent in the teaching service, they only represent 16.8 per cent of personnel in the fire service (and none at the higher levels, that is grade five and above); 9.4 per cent in the prison service (and none at the higher levels); and 27.8 per cent in the police service (and only 3.9 per cent at the higher levels). Regarding the sex-specific terminology used in the denomination of the offices mentioned in the Schedule, Parts I–VI, of the Civil Service Regulations, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that equality of treatment is ensured to all workers irrespective of sex. The Committee notes with concern the lack of steps taken by the Government to ensure that the legislation only contains gender-neutral terminology, despite the persistent occupational gender segregation in the public service. In this regard, it wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, even in the absence of any discrimination based on sex, the use of sex-specific terminology to describe certain categories of workers may reinforce stereotypes regarding whether certain jobs should be carried out by men or women (for example, postman, watchman, foreman, repairman, handyman, ward or home sister, matron, maid, laundress), or whether women may have access to decision-making positions (for example, “chief male nurse”, or the distinction made between “male airport attendant” and “female airport attendant” for airport attendant I and II). In light of the persistent occupational gender segregation and ongoing revision of the Civil Service Regulations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the Schedule, Parts I–VI, of the Civil Service Regulations in order to ensure that gender-neutral terminology is used in defining the various jobs and classifications in the public service. It asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address occupational gender segregation in the public service and to continue providing statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the different sectors and occupations of the public service.

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