Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Netherlands (Ratification: 1971)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the joint observations of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) received on 30 August 2023, and then communicated by the Government.

Articles 1(b) and 2(2)(a) of the Convention. Work of equal value. Scope of comparison. Legislation. In relation to the equal treatment legislation that only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company, the Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that the National Labour Authority (NLA, formerly the Labour Inspectorate SZW) does not deal with individual unequal pay cases and no data is available for the judiciary as such cases are not registered under a specific category. In that regard, the Committee observes that, in March 2019, a Bill on Equal Pay for Women and Men was submitted to the House of Representatives to give the NLA the task of monitoring the application of the law and imposing fines in case of non-compliance. The Bill was debated in Parliament for the first time in February 2021 but has not been adopted so far. The Committee further notes, from the Government’s report, that the number of decisions issued by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) regarding unequal pay between men and women remains low (from 3 in 2020 to 4 in 2022) but observes that discrimination on the ground of sex was proved in 73 per cent of the cases examined by the NIHR between 2020 and 2022. According to the NIHR, in such cases the salary of the applicant was compared to the salary of a “reference person” of the other sex with the same position and responsibilities within the organization, or the NIHR looked at whether there were large average differences between what men and women earn within that organization. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the measures envisaged to extend the scope of comparison of work of equal value beyond the same enterprise. Recalling that the concept of “work of equal value” permits a broad scope of comparison, including, but going beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, which is nevertheless of equal value, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise, but allows for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different places or enterprises, or between different employers. Ensuring a broad scope of comparison is essential for the application of the principle of the Convention given the continued prevalence of occupational gender segregation. Indeed, where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment level will be insufficient (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 697–699). As regards the persistence of occupational gender segregation, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). In light of the persistent occupational gender segregation and wide gender pay gap, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the legislation in order to ensure a broad scope of comparison between jobs to determine whether they are of equal value, in particular by ensuring that the application of the principle is not limited to the same establishment or enterprise. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any legislative development in that regard, in particular in the context of the Bill on Equal Pay for Women and Men; (ii) any activities undertaken to raise awareness of the scope of comparison of the principle of the Convention, in particular among workers, employers and their organizations, as well as law enforcement authorities; and (iii) any unequal pay cases dealt with by the NLA, the NIHR, the courts or any other competent authorities allowing for a comparison to be made between the situation of a woman employee and a man employee beyond the level of the same enterprise.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that several tools have been updated with a view to assisting employers to carry out objective job evaluation, namely: (1) the Digital Guide to Equal Pay for Men and Women published in September 2020 by the Labour Foundation that addresses the role of job evaluation systems and factors that can contribute to equal pay; (2) the Quickscan Equal Pay developed by the NIHR; and (3) the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration and the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual. The Government adds that WOMEN Inc. was awarded a grant, which was used in 2021 and 2022 for various activities aimed at raising employers’ awareness and providing them with tools to promote equal pay, such as a roadmap for employers in order to assess and address the gender pay gap within their company. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that, as a result of the forthcoming implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive of 2023, organizations will have to be more transparent as regards their pay system, including pay progression of workers. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on: (i) the proactive measures taken, in cooperation with the social partners, to raise awareness of and promote the use of available tools that assist employers in developing objective job evaluation systems and determining rates of remuneration without gender bias; (ii) any assessment made of the impact of these tools on ensuring that pay structures and performance-based pay systems are based on objective criteria free from gender bias, as well as on reducing the unexplained pay differentials between men and women; and (iii) any others measures taken or envisaged to promote, develop and implement practical approaches and methods for the objective evaluation of jobs, both in the public and private sectors, based on criteria that are free from gender bias, such as qualifications and skills, effort, responsibilities and conditions of work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the joint observations of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) received on 30 August 2023, and then communicated by the Government.

Articles 1 to 4 of the Convention. Assessing and addressing the gender pay gap and its underlying causes. The Committee notes that, in their joint observations, the CNV and the FNV express concern regarding the persistent gender pay gap which is higher than in other European countries. In that regard, the Committee observes that, according to EUROSTAT, in 2021, the unadjusted gender pay gap was estimated at 13.5 per cent (compared to 14.7 per cent in 2018) being higher that the average gender pay gap in the European Union (12.7 per cent). It notes that, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), the gender pay gap was particularly high in the private sector (19.2 per cent, compared to 11.1 per cent in the public sector) and persisted in all economic sectors, including in those where women are more represented (such as healthcare, education and services). Furthermore, in 2020, the gender pay gap was as high as 28 per cent in the financial activities, 27 per cent in trade and 23 per cent in industry. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that the gender pay gap is a reflection of the different positions of men and women in the labour market, as men work more often in jobs with higher salaries, for example in the financial sector, while women work more often in lower-paid sectors, such as the healthcare sector. The Committee refers, in that regard, to its comments made on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that several measures are being implemented to address the gender pay gap, namely: (1) the adoption of a new Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination 2022-2025 which provides for various targeted measures in order to promote equal pay for work of equal value; and (2) the planned implementation of the Directive (EU) 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 to strengthen the application of equal value between men and women, in collaboration with the social partners. Observing that the EU Directive entered into force on 6 June 2023 and must be implemented by EU Member States within three years, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, as part of the implementation process, awareness-raising and training activities for workers and employers shall be developed. The Government adds that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment will explore whether conducting further research into reduction of the gender pay gap is methodologically feasible and whether this can be helpful in further improving gender equality in the labour market. The aim is to inform the House of Representatives by the end of 2023. The Committee observes that, in their joint observations, the CNV and the FNV fully support this initiative and plead for not postponing such research. Welcoming the measures taken and envisaged by the Government, the Committee observes that the gender pay gap only slightly decreased over the past years and remains high, more particularly in the private sector. In light of the high and persistent gender pay gap, the Committee asks the Government to strengthen its efforts in order to identify and address the likely underlying causes of the gender pay gap, such as occupational gender segregation and gender stereotypes. It asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any measures implemented to that end, in particular in the framework of the Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination 2022-2025, and their impact; (ii) any developments introduced to improve pay transparency, in particular in the context of the transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive of 2023; and (iii) the earnings of men and women, in both the public and private sectors, disaggregated by economic sector and occupation, where possible, as well as any further research carried out by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment or any other body on the gender pay gap.

Article 2. Measures to address differences in remuneration of part-time workers and workers in other diverse forms of work contracts. The Committee notes that, according to the CBS data (“Emancipatiemonitor” 2022), in 2020, 75 per cent of women worked part-time (a share that increased by 4.5 per cent since 2008, compared to 32 per cent for men) and the average hourly wages of part-time workers remain lower than those of full-time workers. Industries where many employees work part-time are relatively often industries with low hourly wages, such as the trade and the hospitality industry, where employees are mainly women, thereby leading to indirect discrimination based on gender with respect to pay. The Government adds that: (1) several measures have already been implemented to increase labour participation of part-time workers, such as the extension of the childbirth leave and parental leave; (2) a campaign has been launched to encourage part-time workers to start the conversation with their employer and at home in order to increase their working hours; and (3) a broad societal dialogue will be launched by the end of 2023 to discuss barriers for women to fully engage into the labour market. In that regard, the Committee notes that, in their joint observations, the CNV and the FNV express serious concerns about the Government’s approach which increases pressure on women instead of adopting measures that would introduce systematic changes and correct structural discrimination and barriers for gender equality, in particular regarding the role of women as primary caregivers. In that regard, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). As regards other non-standards forms of work contracts, the Committee notes that, according to CBS, persons with a fixed-term contract earn on average less than persons with a permanent contract. The Government states that it plans to abolish zero-hour contracts and on-call contracts (except for students with part-time jobs) and to replace them by a new type of contract that will provide more predictability as regards number of working hours and wages. The Government adds that these measures will be debated in Parliament in 2023 and are expected to have positive effects on gender equality, as currently women are over-represented in non-standard forms of work contract. Welcoming this information, the Committee however notes with regret that the Government does not provide information on the measures implemented or envisaged to address differences in remuneration of part-time workers and workers in other non-standard forms of work contracts. The Committee urges the Government to strengthen its efforts in order to address differences in remuneration between men and women and implement the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, taking into account the high number of women engaged in part-time work and other non-standard forms of work contracts and their lower hourly rates, as well as their concentration in jobs that are generally lower paid. It asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any targeted measures elaborated and implemented to that end, including in collaboration with the social partners; (ii) any legislative developments regarding non-standard forms of work contracts, in particular zero-hour and on-call contracts, and their impact on the gender pay gap; and (iii) the number of men and women engaged in part-time work and other non-standard forms of work contracts and their average remuneration in comparison to full-time workers.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Professionals (VCP) received on 29 August 2019, as well as the additional observations of the CNV and the FNV received on 24 September 2020, which were also transmitted by the Government.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Work of equal value. Scope of comparison. The Committee previously noted that the equal treatment legislation only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company. The Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government, in its report, on any measures envisaged to extend the scope of comparison beyond the level of the enterprise, as requested in its last comment. It further notes that, in their observations, the FNV, the CNV and the VCP indicate that job rating systems are based per sector, and that there is no system that compares wages and function levels across different sectors. The Committee recalls that the application of the principle of the Convention should not be limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment, enterprise or sector but allow for a much broader comparison to be made between jobs performed by men and women in different places or enterprises, or between different employers or sectors. Where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment level will be insufficient (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 676–679 and 697–698). Given the persistent gender segregation in certain sectors, including the education and health sector, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that when determining whether two jobs are of equal value the scope of comparison goes beyond the same enterprise or sector. It further encourages the Government to undertake awareness-raising activities and trainings to promote better understanding of the principle of the Convention by employers, workers and their respective organizations, as well as judges and law enforcement officers, in particular as regards the scope of comparison. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any unequal pay cases dealt with by labour inspectors, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights or the courts allowing for a comparison to be made between the situation of a female employee and a male employee beyond the level of the same enterprise.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination for 2014-2018 provided for a wider dissemination of the existing tools such as the “Remuneration guide (loonwijzer)” and “Quickscan”, as well as the development of special wage negotiation courses for women by workers’ organizations. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the efforts made, in cooperation with the social partners, to promote these tools in enterprises that have no job evaluation system. The Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government in that regard. It however notes the Government’s indication that several tools are available for workers and employers, as well as their respective organizations, such as the «equal pay checklist» from the Labour Foundation and the advices on equal pay available on the website of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (hereinafter “the Institute”). Furthermore, anyone who reasonably suspects a pay discrimination can request an opinion from the Institute which will investigate the situation. The Government adds that, pursuant to the Works Council Act, members of entrepreneur councils are able to play a strong role in putting this issue on the agenda and tackling it within their own company. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the proactive measures taken, in particular in cooperation with the social partners, to raise awareness about and promote the use of available tools for enterprises that have no job evaluation system. It further asks the Government to provide information on any assessment made on the impact of these tools, in particular in the determination of rates of remuneration free from gender bias, as well as on any other steps taken to develop and implement objective job evaluation methods and the results thereof.

Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. The Committee notes that the Government merely refers to the information provided on the above-mentioned available tools on equal pay The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to specifically monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of negotiations on flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales, so as to avoid these resulting in pay inequalities.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the supplementary pension schemes did not include any gender disparity and that the unequal treatment that existed in the past with regard to married women and part-time workers, no longer existed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that research carried out in 2016 showed that the expected pension to be achieved is higher for men that for women, mainly as a result of: (1) differences between men and women in labour participation; and (2) differences in the extent to which men and women work part-time. The Government states that it will pay explicit attention to the effects on the expected pension to be achieved for men and women in designing the renewal of its pension system. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it is preparing a renewal of the legislation for division of pension in case of divorce in order to achieve better gender equality, by ensuring that the partner who has accrued the least pension during the marital period, in practice mainly women, receives an independent entitlement to a pension. The Committee welcomes this information. Referring to its comments on the application to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No.111), the Committee notes that, in their observations, the FNV, the CNV and the VCP indicate that the gender pension gap is mainly caused by the fact that most women work part-time, thus requesting the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the time spent to care for children and relatives is more equally shared between men and women. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address gender disparity in pensions, including on any changes introduced to that end in the legislation, specifically focussing on married women who mainly accrued the least pension and part-time workers who are mostly women. It asks the Government to provide updated statistical information on the pension levels for men and women.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Professionals (VCP) received on 29 August 2019, as well as the additional observations of the CNV and the FNV received on 24 September 2020, which were also transmitted by the Government.

Article 2 of the Convention. Measures to address differences in remuneration of part-time workers and workers in other non-standards forms of work contracts. The Committee previously noted the recommendations made by the Task Force Part-Time Plus established to address equal pay in a wider national context in which men are usually working full time and women part-time. It requested the Government to provide information on targeted measures taken to reduce the pay gap between men and women, taking into account the high number of women engaged in part-time work and their concentration in jobs that are generally lower paid, and to report in detail on the results achieved. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that a high number of women is still working part-time, in particular young women; the difference in the average number of hours worked per week between women and men (28 hours and 39 hours respectively, in 2017) being much greater that the European average. The Government indicates that, as a result, it has decided to undertake an Interdepartmental Policy Study (IBO) to explore the causes and effects of part-time work, as well as possible obstacles in working more or fewer hours, in order to elaborate relevant policy packages. As regards the concerns previously expressed by the FNV and the CNV regarding the gender pay gap with respect to other non-standard forms of work contracts (fixed-term work, zero or undefined hours contracts and self-employed workers), the Committee notes the lack of information provided by the Government. However, it notes that, in their additional observations, the FNV and the CNV point out that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) the number of hours worked by women has declined more rapidly than the number of hours worked by men; a situation which has had a negative impact on the labour market position of women and the achievement of equal remuneration; and (2) a high number of workers with flexible contracts lost their job. In that regard, the Committee notes that, in its supplementary information, the Government indicates that, on 22 June 2020, a temporary measure (TOFA) was introduced for “flexible workers” that have been laid off after 1 March due to the COVID-19 crisis, with a substantial loss of income. The scheme consists of a one-off gross payment of €1,650 for the period from March to May 2020. In light of the absence of measures implemented to address differences in remuneration of part-time workers, the Committee urges the Government to provide information on any measures taken to reduce the pay gap between men and women, taking into account the high number of women engaged in part-time work and their concentration in jobs that are generally lower paid, in particular as a follow-up of the planned Interdepartmental Policy Study on part-time work. It again asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to assess and address differences in remuneration with respect to other non-standard forms of work contracts and obstacles that may exist for such workers to initiate legal proceedings concerning pay inequalities between men and women.

Measures to address the gender pay gap. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the unadjusted pay gap between men and women decreased from 20 per cent, in 2014, to 19 percent, in 2016, in the private sector, and from 10 per cent, in 2014, to 8 per cent, in 2016, in the public sector. The Government adds that, after correction (taking into account differences in part-time and full-time work, age, level of occupation and management posts), in 2016, a difference remained of 7 per cent in the private sector and 5 per cent in the public sector, such figures being unchanged when compared to 2014. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that an important part of the explanation of the gender pay gap is the persistent uneven distribution of care responsibilities between men and women which hampers women’s participation in the labour market. In that regard, the Committee refers to its comments made on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). As regards women in higher management level, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that their number is rising too slowly as, mid-2017, women represented only 11.7 per cent of members of boards of directors and 16.2 per cent of members of supervisory boards. The Government adds that more companies need to work on moving women to higher positions and that it started to monitor progress in that regard, in particular through a benchmark on companies achieving diversity in top positions and the setting-up of a new Business Monitor. The Committee notes that the Government requested the Social and Economic Council (SER) to provide advice on effective measures that would contribute to gender diversity in higher management level. The Committee takes note of this information. However, it notes with regret the repeated lack of information provided by the Government on additional measures taken to address, in cooperation with the social partners, that part of the difference in remuneration that may be due to discrimination. In that regard, it notes that the FNV, the CNV and the VCP urge the Government to support a law proposal on equal pay for women and men that: (1) would request companies with more than fifty employees to prove that equal remuneration is paid to women and men for equal work; and (2) introduce a certification system with an obligation for employers to provide figures every three years on the remuneration of employees and address unequal remuneration situations, or pay fines, and the labour inspectorate being in charge of such monitoring. Furthermore, the trade unions consider that there is a need to address the possibility that part of the gender pay gap may be caused by discrimination, whether unconsciously or intentionally, while also improving the labour market position of women who are still overrepresented in lower-paid sectors, such as education, health care, childcare, cleaning and retail. In their additional observations, the FNV and the CNV add that the COVID-19 pandemic showed that such sectors are vital as women have been working in the frontline during the recent lockdown, while pointing out that this is not reflected in the level of their remuneration. In light of the persistent gender pay gaps, the Committee urges the Government to provide information on the proactive measures implemented to reduce the gender pay gaps, both in the public and private sectors, including by enhancing women’s access to jobs with career prospects and higher pay. It asks more particularly the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to address the difference in remuneration that may be due to gender discrimination, including information on any legislative proposal in relation to the principle of the Convention. Finally, the Committee asks the Government to provide statistical information on the earnings of men and women, disaggregated by economic activity and occupation, both in the public and private sectors.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Wage setting and determining value. The Committee recalls that equal treatment legislation only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company. With regard to the possibility to look outside the enterprises for appropriate comparisons, the Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to the research undertaken on equal pay in hospitals (2012) and in the higher education sector (2015). The research showed that when criteria for determining remuneration were based on the level of work experience, wage negotiations and the most recent pay, together they constituted a risk of wage differentiation, and that when the application of these criteria led to less pay, women were affected twice as much as men. The Government also reports that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science stressed the importance of all colleges analysing their remuneration policies on the basis of the results of the study in the education sector. While welcoming these initiatives, the Committee notes that it remains unclear whether these studies looked at the possibility of comparing wages between men and women beyond the level of the establishment or enterprise. Moreover, according to the Government no detailed information is available on whether equal pay claims submitted to the Institute for Human Rights or the courts addressed the issue of comparison beyond the enterprise level. Given the persistent gender segregation in certain sectors, including the education and health sectors and the lack of clarity as to whether in practice the possibility exists to look outside the establishment for appropriate comparisons between wages of men and women, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to allow for appropriate comparison beyond the level of the enterprise in those cases where the possibilities of comparison at the enterprise level or establishment are insufficient, and to report on the progress made in this regard.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. Regarding measures to promote existing tools for objective job evaluation, the Government indicates that the Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination provides for the wider dissemination of the existing tools such as the “Remuneration guide (loonwijzer)” and “Quickscan”, as well as the development of special wage negotiation courses for women by workers’ organizations. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the efforts made, in cooperation with the social partners, to promote these tools in enterprises that have no job evaluation system and to indicate how differences in remuneration between men and women will be monitored in those enterprises.

Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on the measures taken to monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of negotiations on flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales, so as to avoid that these result in pay inequalities.

Equal remuneration with respect to supplementary pension schemes. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation that the supplementary pension schemes do not include any gender disparity and that the unequal treatment that existed in the past with regard to married women and part-time work, no longer exist. Regarding the participation of women in supplementary pension schemes, the Government reports that research in 2013 showed that 96 per cent of the employees were taking part in a supplementary pension scheme through their employer and that no differences exist between men and women. The Committee encourages the Government to remain vigilant as to any inequalities in remuneration that may occur between men and women with respect to participation in and benefits from supplementary pension schemes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) and the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) received on 31 August 2016.

Article 2 of the Convention. Measures to address differences in remuneration of part-time workers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide details on the advice given by Social and Economic Council (SER) on labour market discrimination, including on how the advice addressed the recommendations made by the Task Force Part-Time Plus in 2010 to tackle differences in pay between men and women. The Committee recalls that the Task Force Part-Time Plus was established to address equal pay in a wider national context in which men are usually working full time and women part time. The Committee notes that the most recent study on equal pay published by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in November 2016 and referred to by the Government in its report, indicates that average hourly wages of part-time workers are relatively low compared to those of full-time workers, and a significant gender pay gap persists between full-time and part-time workers. The study found that in 2014, 32 per cent of the male workers and 79 per cent of the female workers were working part-time in the private sector, compared to 24 per cent of the male workers and 70 per cent of the female workers in the public sector. Part-time work is also more common in female dominated sectors, and the study indicates that of the five sectors with the highest number of part-time workers, restaurant and hotel and commerce sectors – where many women work – are those with the lowest hourly wages. While welcoming the research undertaken on equal pay differences and part-time work, the Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on specific measures taken to address differences in remuneration, including on any follow-up given to the recommendations of the Task Force Part-Time Plus. The Committee further notes that FNV and CNV point out that the unjustified difference in pay with respect to part-time work also exists with respect to other types of non-standard forms of employment, including fixed-term work, zero or undefined hours contracts, and self-employed workers undertaking regular work, and encourage the Government to broaden the study on the gender pay gap to other non-standard forms of work contracts and to examine the low number of legal proceedings initiated in this regard. With regard to the promotion of part-time work as a means to assist workers in reconciling work with family responsibilities, and to promote full-time employment of working parents, especially women, the Committee refers to its comments on the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). Noting that the action taken and the follow-up given to the recommendations to reduce the gender pay gap with respect to part-time workers remain unclear, the Committee asks the Government to adopt more targeted measures to reduce the pay gap between men and women, taking into account the high number of women engaged in part-time work and their concentration in jobs that are generally lower paid, and to report in detail on the results achieved. Further, the Committee asks the Government to consider broadening the study on the gender pay gap to other non-standard forms of work contracts and to examine any obstacles that may exist for workers employed in non-standard forms of employment to initiate legal proceedings concerning pay inequalities between men and women, and to provide information on the steps taken in this regard.

Measures to address the gender pay gap. The Committee previously requested information on any proactive measures taken including any follow-up given to recommendations with respect to an equal pay campaign, the enforcement of equal pay provisions by the labour inspectorate and the development of an equal pay policy when providing government support to financial institutions, as the gender pay gap in this sector was significant. The Committee notes from the CBS study on equal pay that the uncorrected gender pay gap – based on gross hourly wages – in the public sector narrowed from 13 per cent in 2010 to 10 per cent in 2014. In the private sector the gender pay gap however remained at 20 per cent. After correction (taking into account differences in part-time and full-time work, age, level of occupation and management posts) a difference remained of 5 per cent in the public sector and 7 per cent in the private sector in 2014. The study also indicates that the gender pay gap increases with age and that, in female dominated enterprises in the private sector, average hourly wages are lower. Female managers in the private sector also earn significantly less than male managers and persisting occupational segregation negatively impacts women’s wages in the health sector where the gender pay gap is the highest. In terms of measures to address the gender pay gap, the Government reports that the SER advice “Discrimination doesn’t work!” issued in April 2014, emphasized the collective responsibility of government, trade unions and employers’ organizations and other social actors to address discrimination in the labour market, and that in response, the Government presented the Action Plan on Labour Market Discrimination (May 2014) – which was updated in 2016. The Government reports that measures under the Plan have included: (i) the launching by the Labour Foundation of the Diversity Charter for employers in July 2015; (ii) the creation of a specific discrimination team within the labour inspectorate; and (iii) additional research on equal pay. The Committee notes the new periodic study on equal pay in the public and private sectors published by the CBS (November 2016) and the research undertaken in 2016 by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (the Institute) on equal remuneration between men and women in higher education institutions. While welcoming these initiatives, the Committee observes that, apart from the additional research on equal pay, the information provided by the Government is insufficient to assess the effectiveness of any of the proposed solutions for reducing the gender pay gap, including any follow-up given to the abovementioned recommendations. The Committee notes that FNV and CNV urge the Government to monitor at regular intervals the effectiveness of the measures concerning the gender pay gap and to hold consultations with the social partners on how to improve effectiveness. Noting that the uncorrected gender pay gap remains significant and that no further information has been provided by the Government on additional measures taken to address, in cooperation with the social partners, that part of the difference in remuneration that may be due to discrimination, the Committee urges the Government to provide such information in its next report. The Committee asks the Government to take measures, in cooperation with the social partners, to address the effects of occupational segregation in certain sectors of employment on the differences in pay between men and women, in particular in the health sector, and to adopt specific measures to address the gender pay gap in female-dominated enterprises in the private sector and at higher management level. The Committee encourages the Government to monitor, in consultation with the social partners, the effectiveness of the measures concerning the gender pay gap, and to provide information on the results achieved in this regard.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the observations on the Government’s report by the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO–NCW) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV).

Assessment of the gender pay gap. The Committee recalls that various studies and research have been undertaken on differences in remuneration and the underlying causes of the uncorrected gender pay gap, which remained relatively high. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the information provided by Statistics Netherlands on the uncorrected difference is based on the gross hourly wage and that the corrected difference is calculated on a number of characteristics such as gender, age and education. This resulted in an uncorrected gender wage gap in 2010 of 13 per cent in government and 20 per cent in industry; after correction a difference of 7 and 8 per cent remained in industry. The Government considers, however, that a difference after correction does not mean that discrimination exists as some differences cannot be measured, such as those related to ambition. The FNV points out, however, in this regard that the difficulties for women to be promoted to better paid positions cannot be explained only by their assumed lack of ambition, but rather indicate the existence of a glass ceiling. The Committee asks the Government to cooperate with the social partners, in identifying and implementing any additional measures that need to be taken to address the gender pay gap, including measures to address vertical occupational segregation and to ensure that the part of the difference in remuneration that is due to discrimination based on sex is accurately examined and addressed. Please also provide the results of any relevant research or studies undertaken in this regard and the solutions proposed. Please continue to provide information, including statistics, on the evolution of the gender pay gap in the public and private sectors, covering full-time and part-time workers.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Wage setting and determining value. The Committee recalls its previous comments in which it addressed issues relating to the scope of comparison of work of equal value beyond the level of the same company or enterprise, the promotion of the use of objective job evaluation systems free from gender bias, the evolution of pay structures in the public sector, and measures to monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. The Committee notes the general reply of the Government that it will not take any further action before the Social and Economic Council (SER) has published its advice on discrimination in the labour market. In addition, the Committee notes that, with respect to measures to allow for appropriate comparison beyond enterprise level, the VNO–NCW expresses the view that the objective to eliminate wage discrimination between men and women should not be extended beyond company level as different companies and different sectors have different wage levels and structures, based on their competitiveness and labour market position. The Committee also notes that the Government provides only general information on the number of cases on wage discrimination addressed by the courts in 2011 and by the Equal Treatment Commission (now incorporated in the Institute for Human Rights (CRM)) in 2012 (ten and four, respectively). The Committee wishes to reiterate that the reach of comparison between jobs performed by women and men should be as wide as possible, in the context of the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are coordinated. Where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment will be insufficient; the possibility to look outside an enterprise for appropriate comparisons should therefore exist, where necessary. Noting that the advice of the SER was expected by the end of 2013, the Committee trusts that the Government will be able to take action on the issues addressed in its previous direct request and provide detailed information on the following:

• (i) any measures taken or envisaged to allow for appropriate comparison beyond enterprise level in those cases where the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment are insufficient, for example, because women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations;
• (ii) details of the nature and outcome of wage discrimination cases addressed by the courts or the CRM, including those that specifically allow for a comparison to be made between the situation of a female employee and a male employee beyond the level of the same enterprise;
• (iii) any measures taken or envisaged to promote widely the existing tools on objective job evaluation, and to monitor differences in remuneration between men and women in enterprises that have no job evaluation system;
• (iv) any measures taken or envisaged, in cooperation with the social partners, to monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of negotiations on flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales; and
• (v) the evolution of the pay structures in the public sector.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government on the participation of male and female workers without a pension in the second pillar (“white workers”) employed with companies without a pension scheme from the employer (“white employers”) indicating that no major differences exist between men and women employed with “white employers” (23 per cent men and 22 per cent women). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the outcome of the consultations with the social partners to improve the participation of women in supplementary pension schemes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the observations on the Government’s report by the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO–NCW) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV).

Measures to address the pay gap and differences in remuneration of part-time workers. The Committee recalls that, with a view to addressing equal pay in a wider context the Task Force Part-Time Plus was established. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to implement, in cooperation with the social partners, the recommendations of the Task Force, including an assessment of their impact on reducing differences in remuneration between men and women relating to part-time work. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that a Bill on combining work and childcare is currently being discussed in Parliament, and the Social and Economic Council (SER) has been asked to advise by the end of 2013 on discrimination in the labour market, including differences in remuneration. The Government indicates that it will take no further action until the advice of the SER is published. While acknowledging the importance of this advice, the FNV regrets the lack of additional information provided by the Government on the policies and measures taken to follow up on the recommendations of the Task Force Part-Time Plus and the abovementioned Bill. With respect to other proactive measures taken or envisaged to promote the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, previously suggested by the FNV, the Committee notes that the Government also intends to await the advice of the SER. The Committee notes that the VNO–NCW highlights that some initiatives have been taken by the social partners in the past decade to eliminate or reduce discrimination in general and with respect to remuneration in particular. The Committee asks the Government to provide details of the advice given by the SER, including to what extent it addressed the recommendations of the Task Force Part-Time Plus. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the specific follow-up given to the Task Force recommendations and any recommendations by the SER, and the results achieved. It also asks the Government to provide detailed information on any proactive measures to address the gender pay gap, including any follow-up to some recommendations, previously referred to by the FNV, with respect to an equal pay campaign, the enforcement of equal pay provisions by the labour inspectorate, and the development of an equal pay policy when providing government support to financial institutions, as the pay gap is significant in this sector, and the results achieved.

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

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

The Committee notes the observations on the Government’s report by the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO–NCW) and the Federation for Small and Medium-sized Business (MKB–NL), as well as the communication of the Netherlands Trade Union Federation (FNV).

Comparing work of equal value beyond the level of the same company or enterprise. The Committee recalls that the equal treatment legislation only allows for comparison of wages between men and women within the same company. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, referring to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding Article 141(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, that it is not impossible for the equal pay principle to be tested by the national courts or the Equal Treatment Commission (ETC) by comparing the employment situation of a female employee and a male employee where they work for different employers. The Government further considers, however, that differences may exist between companies and that it is within each company that there should be equal treatment. The Committee notes that VNO–NCW also considers that differences exist between enterprises, even if in each enterprise men and women must be treated equally. The Committee recalls that the reach of comparison between jobs performed by women and men should be as wide as possible, in the context of the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are coordinated. Where women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations, there is a risk that the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment will be insufficient; the possibility to look outside an enterprise for appropriate comparisons should therefore exist, where necessary. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any wage discrimination cases addressed by the courts or the ETC allowing for a comparison to be made between the situation of a female employee and a male employee beyond the level of the same enterprise. Please also provide information on whether any measures are being considered to allow for appropriate comparison beyond enterprise level in those cases where the possibilities for comparison at the enterprise or establishment are insufficient, for example, because women are more heavily concentrated in certain sectors or occupations.

Promotion of the principle through objective job evaluation. Regarding the manner in which companies without a job evaluation system determine pay free from gender bias, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the principle of equal remuneration has been enacted into law and that, in general, employers should verify whether their job evaluation systems are sufficiently transparent or whether unequal remuneration exists in the enterprise. The Government also states that the social partners have an important role in this regard and that various tools have been developed to support employers and social partners to comply with the principle of equal remuneration. With respect to the meaning of the terms “male positions” and “female positions” that are “more or less comparable” used in the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual, the Government reiterates the equal pay provisions (sections 2(7) and (8)) of the Equal Treatment in Employment (Men and Women) Act and adds that the criterion should always be whether the employees in question could be considered to be in a similar situation, based on a series of objective factors such as the nature of the work, the qualifications required and the conditions in which the work is actually carried out. FNV considers, however, that legislation is not sufficient to ensure that companies that do not have a job evaluation system use objective criteria for determining pay free from gender bias, and that more proactive measures are required to address the gender pay gap. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken, in cooperation with the social partners, to raise awareness about and promote more widely the use of the various tools that assist employers in developing objective job evaluation systems and determining rates of remuneration without gender bias. Please also indicate any other measures taken or envisaged to monitor differences in remuneration between men and women in enterprises that have no job evaluation system.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. The Committee recalls the need for corrective action to compensate women who were previously excluded from participating in pension schemes, and to address the limited participation of women in supplementary pension schemes. The Committee notes that a 2007 inventory of the numbers of employees without any supplementary pension was made available on 21 December 2009, and revealed that 10 per cent of employees fell into this category. The Committee further indicates that consultations are being held about the outcome of the inventory but that no conclusions or measures have yet been reached or taken. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on how equal remuneration is ensured with respect to pension schemes and to provide any information on the outcome of the consultations with the social partners, and the measures taken to improve the participation of women in supplementary pension schemes.

Pay structures. Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the Council for public sector employees (ROP) the situation on equal remuneration in the public sector is not yet clear and that a full response will be provided after the ROP has studied the survey to be carried out by the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations. The Labour Foundation has indicated that the recommendations from the CLOSE (Correction of Wage Gap in Sectors) project have been submitted to parties negotiating collective agreements and that employers’ and workers’ organizations are also providing individual support during salary negotiations and to works councils. According to the Labour Foundation, it is up to enterprises and parties to decentralized collective agreements to make use of the tools developed for this purpose. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the evolution of the pay structures in the public sector, and asks the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged, in cooperation with the social partners, to monitor the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in the context of negotiations on flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales.

Additional measures to promote the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee notes that FNV considers that the legislative protection regarding equal pay is insufficient to address the overall gender pay gap and, referring to a report “Women’s rights, some progress, many gaps”, suggests that more proactive action could be taken to address the gender pay gap. Such action could include further research, an equal pay campaign, assessing the results of the enforcement of the equal pay provisions by the Labour Inspectorate, and requiring the development of an equal pay policy when providing Government support to financial institutions (banks or insurance companies) as the pay gap is significant in this sector. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to follow-up some or all of these recommendations, and the results achieved.

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

The Committee notes the observations on the Government’s report by the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO–NCW) and the Federation for Small and Medium-sized Business (MKB–NL), as well as the communication of the Netherlands Trade Union Federation (FNV).

Measures to address the wage gap and differences in remuneration of part time workers. The Committee recalls its previous comments noting an average gender wage gap of 18 per cent and the need for targeted action to address the gender wage gap given that in the present national context men are usually working full time and women part time, and that some provisions in collective agreements excluding part-time workers from receiving certain bonuses, lead to inequalities between men and women. In this connection, the Committee had noted that various studies and research indicated that equal pay should be addressed in a wider context and that a Task Force Part-Time Plus had been established with the aim of making it easier for workers to combine work and care responsibilities and to encourage women, who wish to work more hours, to do so. Research undertaken on differences in remuneration and its underlying causes in various sectors had also indicated that the uncorrected difference in remuneration remained relatively high. Other research on the extent to which differences in remuneration could be tracked back to emancipation, discrimination, and sociological or economical factors was expected to propose solutions for addressing remuneration differences. The labour inspectorate was also undertaking research on differences in remuneration.

The Committee notes that the Task Force Part-Time Plus presented its final report on March 2010. It contained recommendations on how to increase the level of participation of women in the labour market with a view to reducing pay differences, and these have been brought to the attention of the social partners. The Government states that assessing the impact of the Task Force will require the monitoring, among others things, of collective agreements regarding flexible work arrangements. The Committee notes that the FNV reaffirms that part time work is a well-known cause of the gender pay gap and states that the Task Force Part-Time Work Plus recommended that tax policies that support women to work more hours should be more widely reported and that the Government should explore how Dutch fiscal and income legislation supports or undermines women working more paid hours; legislation should also be improved where necessary. Other recommendations included exploring the possibilities of better paid parental leave and improving childcare, during school periods as well as holidays, and enabling working people to exercise the legal right to work within flexible working hours. The FNV agrees that the social partners should be involved in implementing these recommendations but states that the Government has to take action where it is the most obvious and appropriate actor. With respect to research by the Labour Inspectorate on differences in remuneration, the FNV criticizes the methodology used in assessing the part of the gender pay gap that is due to discrimination between men and women. The FNV suspects that discrimination is more important in influencing the gender pay gap than is acknowledged by the Government, and notes that the fact that the gender pay gap is greater in the higher echelons is left unexplained.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to implement, in cooperation with the social partners, the recommendations of the Task Force Part-Time Plus, including an assessment of their impact on reducing differences in remuneration between men and women relating to part-time work. The Committee also asks the Government to provide the results of any other research or studies undertaken regarding differences of remuneration and the solutions proposed, as well as indicating any action undertaken to monitor provisions in collective agreements concerning flexible working hours. The Government is also requested to provide information on the methodology used by the Labour Inspectorate to assess the gender pay gap, including the part that is due to discrimination based on sex. Please also continue to provide information, including statistics, on the evolution of the gender pay gap in the public and private sectors, covering full-time and part-time workers.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Comparing work of equal value. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that under Dutch law the comparison of wages is based on the wage received by an employee of the opposite sex for work of equal value in the company that employs the employee in whose interest the wage comparison is being made, or in the absence of such basis for comparison, on the wage earned by someone of the opposite sex for work of virtually equal value in said company. The Committee recalls that the application of the Convention’s principle is not limited to comparisons between men and women in the same establishment or enterprise. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to enable the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value to be implemented beyond the level of the same company or enterprise.

Promotion of the principle through objective job evaluation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the use and promotion of the various tools, such as Quickscan equal pay, the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration and the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual, developed with a view to assisting employers to carry out objective job evaluation. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Manual is based on a comparison of “male positions” and “female positions” which are “more or less comparable”. The Committee recalls its 2006 general observation and points out that the concept of equal value permits a broad scope of comparison, and “also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, which is nevertheless of equal value …”. The Committee asks the Government to clarify whether the meaning of “more or less comparable” would allow a comparison of jobs which involve entirely different types of qualifications, skills, responsibilities or working conditions, but which are nevertheless of equal value. The Committee also reiterates its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that companies that do not have a job evaluation system use objective criteria for determining pay free from gender bias.

Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes.  The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need for corrective action to compensate women who had previously been excluded from participating in pension schemes, and to address the limited participation of women in supplementary pension schemes due to exclusion of certain job categories (so-called white spots). Noting that the research on the number of employees without occupational pension provision in 2006, as well as on the so-called white spots in occupational pensions, has been delayed, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide the results of the studies in its next report, as well as on the measures taken to address these issues.

Pay structures. Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. With regard to measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations made by the study group “Equal Pay Works!” to reduce remuneration differences between men and women due to flexible pay systems and long pay scales, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Labour Foundation and the Council for Public Sector Personnel Policy have been asked to report on their achievements in this regard in October 2008, and to indicate how the problem should be addressed. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the progress made with respect to the measures taken to avoid flexible pay systems and long pay scales resulting in pay inequalities between men and women, and the efforts made to ensure that performance-related pay systems are based on objective criteria free from gender bias.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

General measures to address the gender wage gap and differences in remuneration of part-time workers. The Committee notes the communication from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), received on 29 August 2008, which was sent to the Government for its comments thereon. In its communication, the FNV, referring to an average wage gap between men and women of 18 per cent, calls upon the Government to formulate concrete and specific objectives, targets and timetables to narrow this gap. According to FNV, such specific targeted action is necessary, given that men are usually working full time whereas many women are working part time (an average of 23 hours per week). Surveys show that women working part time are often not getting the extra earnings and bonuses received by their male counterparts working full time in the same job. Furthermore, most of the jobs in which women are employed are paid less (i.e. governmental departments, non-profit sector and social service sector) than jobs in which men are employed.

The Committee recalls its previous comments in which it noted that in 2005 49.8 per cent of women and 17.4 per cent of men working in the Netherlands were employed half time, and that certain provisions in collective agreements, such as those excluding part-time workers from bonuses relating to overtime, lead to pay inequalities between men and women. The Committee also recalls that research was continuing into distinctions in working hours, and that the study group “Equal Pay Works!” had recommended that equal pay should be addressed in a wider context, by giving additional attention to combining work and family life, greater involvement of employees in more flexible working-time arrangements, and breaking the glass ceiling by encouraging diversity policies in companies and encouraging career ambitions of women. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that a Task Force Part-Time Plus was established in 2008 which has the aim of making it easier for employees to combine work and care duties and to encourage women who wish to work more hours to do so. The increase in labour participation is expected to lead indirectly to narrower differences in remuneration. The Committee further notes that various studies and surveys have been undertaken with a view to determining differences in remuneration and their underlying causes. A report from the CLOSE (Correction of Wage Gap in Sectors) project was presented to Parliament in December 2007 covering research on differences in remuneration in seven sectors (i.e. food and luxury industry, retail industry, financial institutions, cleaning industry, public administration, hospitals and other health care and welfare care) for which the uncorrected difference in remuneration remained relatively high. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment is also analysing the extent to which differences in remuneration can be traced back to emancipation, discrimination, sociological or economic factors. The results of the study were to be finalized by October 2008 and were expected to help focus solutions addressing remuneration differences. The Committee further notes that the report of the Labour Inspectorate on differences in remuneration in 2006, which has not yet been finalized, will devote attention to distinctions based on working hours in the various sectors. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the Task Force Part-Time Plus on reducing differences in remuneration between men and women, including differences relating to part-time work. The Committee also hopes that results of the research undertaken by the CLOSE Project and on the causes of the wage gap will permit the Government to take more targeted action to reduce the wage gap between men and women, taking into account the high number of women engaged in part-time work and their concentration in jobs that are generally lower paid.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Measures to address the wage gap. With respect to differences in remuneration in the private and public sectors due to certain factors such as the type of contract and occupational gender segregation, as well as those remuneration differentials between men and women that could not be explained, the Committee notes the findings of the final report “Equal Pay – Now or Never” of February 2007 of the study group “Equal Pay Works!” confirming an unexplained pay difference between men and women of 7 per cent. The Committee notes that the study group has looked into pay differences that find their origin in exclusion from collective agreements of certain employees, in scaling and valuation of jobs, in part-time work, in specific contracts or in discrimination, and that it has made a number of recommendations to address these issues (see also points 3, 4 and 5 of this direct request). The Committee notes in particular that, with a view to detecting more effectively unjust pay inequalities, the study group recommends, among other things, that the use by companies as well as the Government and civil service of control tools such as Quick Scan equal pay and the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration should be stimulated, and that their effects should be monitored during 2007. The study group also recommends that equal pay should be addressed in a wider context by given additional attention to combining work and family life, greater involvement of employees in working-time arrangements, and breaking the glass ceiling by stimulating diversification policies in companies and stimulating career ambitions of women. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: any follow-up given to the recommendations made by the study group “Equal Pay Works to address equal pay in wider context, and the results achieved. Noting further that the labour inspectorate will publish its 2006 survey on remuneration, the Committee asks the Government to forward a copy once it has become available”.

2. Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. The Committee refers to its previous comments regarding the need for corrective action to be taken to compensate women who had previously been excluded from participating in those schemes, and the limited participation of women in supplementary pension schemes due to exclusion of certain job categories (so-called white spots). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that now that the costs for reparation of pension schemes have to be paid by employer and employee, it is stimulating the social partners to make agreements for occupational pension provision by fiscal incentives. The Government further states that, together with the social partners, it is studying the number of employees without occupational pension provision in 2006, the results of which will be available in 2007. With respect to the so-called white spots in occupational pensions, the Government states that once the data on the progress in the reduction of these “white spots” are available, it will be in a position to provide information on the job categories that are excluded from the pension schemes and on the number of men and women employed in these categories. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide further details in its next report on the results of the study on occupational pension provision and on the job categories that are excluded from the pension schemes, as well as on the measures taken to address these issues with a view to ensuring the application of the principle of equal remuneration between men and women to pension schemes.

3. Collective agreements. Application of the principle of equal remuneration to part-time workers. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the 2007 report of the study group “Equal Pay Works!” that 49.8 per cent of the women working in the Netherlands in 2005 were employed half time. The study group concludes that there are still certain provisions in collective agreements that directly or indirectly lead to pay inequalities due to the exclusion of certain groups of employees, including part-time workers, from certain provisions (e.g. exclusion of part-time workers from overtime bonuses if overtime hours do not exceed the normal 40-hour working week). The Committee notes that the study group recommends to the social partners that, in order to avoid pay differences in collective agreements, a critical review in terms of equal pay is necessary so that exclusions can be objectively justified. The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that the 2006 survey on distinctions in working hours in collective agreements has not been published yet but that it is expected that the percentage of agreements that make distinctions will have decreased. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the outcome of the survey on distinctions in working hours and on the follow-up given to the recommendations of the study group “Equal Pay Works!” to address pay inequalities resulting from exclusions in collective agreements, in particular with respect to part-time workers.

4. Pay structures: Flexible pay systems, performance pay and long pay scales. With regard to measures to reduce apparent pay differences between men and women in flexible pay systems, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the study group “Equal Pay Works!” was to hold several activities on flexible pay systems and on their consequences for gender neutral job evaluation. The Committee notes the findings of the study group “Equal Pay Works!” that performance-related pay will increase in the coming years. Therefore, using gender-neutral criteria when judging performance will be important as well as to monitor who in the organization are profiting the most or the least from this type of pay. However, the report of the study group does not contain any information on the results achieved in reducing pay differences in flexible pay systems. In addition, the Committee notes that the study group indicates that long pay scales may result in pay inequalities since many female employees – who often have shorter working careers – will never reach the top within their bracket. In order to help diminish pay inequalities, policies should take into account personal development of female employees and their promotion into new jobs in new scales in their own or in a new company. The duration of pay scales should be reduced and scaling women that return to the labour market in scale zero should be avoided. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report: (1) on the measures taken or envisaged, including cooperation with the social partners, to avoid that pay structures, including long pay scales, result in pay inequalities between men and women; (2) on the specific impact of certain measures, such as the equal pay control tools, on reducing pay inequalities between men and women resulting from flexible pay systems; and (3) the efforts made to ensure that performance-related pay systems are based on objective criteria free from gender bias.

5. Article 3. Promotion of the principle and tools for objective job evaluation. The Committee notes that the report on the evaluation of the gender-neutral job evaluation manual was not annexed to the Government’s report. It further notes the information in the Government’s report that the study group “Equal Pay Works!”, which comprises representatives from the social partners and the Equal Treatment Commission was set up to raise awareness on equal pay in companies, trade unions and in collective bargaining and to promote the instruments on equal pay. The Committee notes various activities of the study group to develop quick equal pay tests and to disseminate existing control tools on equal pay. With a view to detecting more effectively unjust pay inequalities, the study group recommends, among other things, that the use by companies as well as the Government and civil service of control tools such as Quick Scan equal pay and the Management Tool on Equal Remuneration should be stimulated, and that their effects should be monitored during 2007. It further highlights that, in situations where no job evaluation system is in place, criteria for scaling should be transparent and open for checks. Some collective agreements feature only a small number of job descriptions with few indications of qualification levels and entail the risk of non-meticulous scaling. Also, many companies still use random pay criteria such as “last pay” and “negotiation skills” which may lead to unequal pay. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken, in cooperation with the social partners, to ensure that companies who do not have a job evaluation system use objective criteria for determining pay free from gender bias. Please also indicate how the use of the equal pay control tools on reducing the unexplained differentials in remuneration between men and women in both the public and private sectors, including in the health sector. Please also provide a copy of the evaluation report of the gender-neutral job evaluation manual.

6. Part III of the report form. Enforcement. The Committee notes the summary provided by the Government of the decision of the High Court of 30 January 2004 concluding that not every violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work had to lead to pay adjustments for the workers who were paid less than they should have been. The main objective was to test fairness and reasonableness and the principle of equal pay for equal work in equal circumstances had to be taken into consideration but other circumstances could also be taken into account. The Committee refers to its 2006 general observation and draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the High Court’s interpretation of equal remuneration appears to give a more restrictive interpretation of the principle embodied in the Convention and in the national legislation which refers to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. Moreover, by indicating that not all pay differences found in violation of that principle have to lead to pay adjustments, the effective enforcement of the principle of equal pay might be at stake. In order to assure itself that the Convention is being effectively applied, the Committee asks the Government to clarify in its next report whether the High Court’s decision indeed only concerns equal pay for men and women for equal work, and to specify what would be other circumstances that could be taken into account when deciding whether or not pay adjustments in equal pay cases are justified. Please also provide a copy of the High Court’s decision as well as copies of any other decisions involving questions of principles relating to Convention No. 100.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the extensive documentation attached. It also notes the comments and additional information supplied by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) in its communication dated 25 November 2004.

1. Wage gap. The Committee notes from the 2004 survey of the labour inspectorate that the remuneration gap between men and women slightly decreased from 23 per cent in 2000 to 22 per cent in 2002 in the private sector and from 15 per cent to 14 per cent in the public sector. Remuneration differentials between full-timers and part-timers who work 12 hours or more a week amount to 22 per cent, and 43 per cent for those who work less than 12 hours a week in the private sector; in the public sector wage differentials between full-timers and part-timers represent 6 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively. The survey explains that gender differences in remuneration may be partially ascribed to the fact that women workers are generally younger, less highly educated and often work part time. Women are more often than men employed in administrative or caring jobs and low-level jobs, have more often flexible or fixed-term contracts, and are employed in the health and welfare sector rather than the building or industry sector. A similar trend is noted with respect to wage differentials between full-timers and part-timers. When taking into account these individual and job-related facts, the survey shows that there is still an unexplained wage gap in the private sector of 7 per cent (5 per cent in 2000) and 3 per cent in the public sector (3 per cent in 2000). The unexplained remuneration gap between full-timers and part-timers amounts to 5 per cent in the private sector (11 per cent in 2000) but has almost disappeared in the public sector. Information provided by the FNV further indicates that research undertaken with the Wage Indicator, a tool allowing detailed research on the gender wage gap, reveals that pay inequalities also continue to exist with respect to the same jobs performed by men and women working in the same enterprise. Noting further that the unexplained remuneration gap between men and women has not really decreased and that the Government had previously indicated that it would undertake micro-level research to determine the exact causes of this gap, the Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will include information on the outcome of this research, including the measures taken to address the causes identified. It also asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to address some of the other underlying reasons for remuneration differentials between men and women, such as those relating to the type of contracts under which women are employed, and their occupational segregation into lower paying jobs or occupations and lower positions without many promotion opportunities.

2. Equal remuneration with respect to pension schemes. In previous comments, the Committee had noted that following EC jurisprudence, the reparation of pensions had become partially mandatory and that a large number of pension funds had begun correcting the pension provision for those women who had been excluded from pensions in the past. It had also noted that the Government had called upon the social partners to investigate whether they could offer financial support for correcting pension provision for (older) women. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will no longer take further corrective action in this regard and that the social partners are also responsible for providing compensation for these former exclusions. It also notes the view of the FNV that the social partners should not be responsible for providing compensation, which is the responsibility of the Government and the employers in conformity with the EC law and jurisprudence. The Committee recalls that the principle of equal remuneration between men and women also applies to pension schemes, and hopes that the Government will continue its efforts, in cooperation with the social partners, to ensure that women who have been excluded in the past from participating in pension arrangements benefit from the protection provided by the Convention, and that further corrective action will be taken for them. With respect to the limited participation of women in supplementary pension schemes due to the exclusion of certain job categories (so-called white spots), the Committee notes that with the adoption of the new Pensions Act, which will replace the Pension and Saving Funds Act, it is expected that the number of "white spots" will be reduced to 3.5 per cent in 2006. If this fails, the Government will introduce a formal obligation not to exclude employees from pension schemes. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption of the Pensions Act and the achievement of this goal. Please also indicate the job categories that will still be excluded from the pension schemes and the number of men and women employed in these job categories.

3. Application of the principle of equal remuneration to part-time workers. The Committee notes the results of the survey conducted by the Equal Treatment Commission (ETC) in the 2002 Survey on the application of the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act concluding that while a number of problems of non-compliance had been identified, employers, government authorities or parties to a collective agreement had in most cases followed the ETC’s opinion to comply with the provisions of the Act. Yet, the Committee notes that the 2003 Survey of the labour inspectorate on distinctions between working hours in collective agreements shows that while the percentage of part-time workers who were fully excluded from collective labour agreements decreased to 2 per cent in 2003; still 45 per cent of the agreements, either fully or partially, exclude part-timers or make distinctions between part-timers and full-timers. The FNV raises in this regard the point that although the ETC had determined that some of the distinctions made were not permitted under the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act, this had not led to the abolition of these distinctions. The Committee notes that the Government nevertheless continues to cooperate with the social partners to reduce the number of distinctions in collective agreements, and asks the Government to keep it informed on the progress made in this regard. Considering the high number of women employed in part-time work, please also provide information on the impact of these efforts on the wage differentials between men and women.

4. Flexible pay systems. The Committee notes that a workshop, involving equal remuneration experts and job evaluation experts, has been held to develop a tool to ensure equal remuneration in the context of flexible pay systems. It notes that following proposals by the workshop, special attention is now being given to the flexible pay systems in the information provided by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, and that flexible pay systems form part of the equal remuneration checklist developed by the Labour Foundation. The equal remuneration quick scan and the equal remuneration management tool also relate to flexible pay systems. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether these measures have had any impact as to the reduction of the apparent differences between men and women in flexible pay systems.

5. Article 3. Promotion of the principle and tools for objective job evaluation. With reference to its previous comments relating to the implementation of the action plan on equal remuneration, the Committee welcomes the activities carried out to promote equal remuneration in small and medium-sized enterprises, and the campaigns to raise awareness among the general public and the works councils. It also notes with interest that the equal remuneration quick scan, which aimed at rapidly assessing job evaluation systems and structures in organizations and ministries, has now been completed. In addition, a complementary management tool is being developed to enable the user to verify the causes of the remuneration differences established by quick scan and to verify whether these differences are in contravention with the law. The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that the tool "Weighing the balance: A gender-neutral job evaluation manual" still has to be evaluated and that a copy of the evaluation report will be forwarded to the Committee, once completed. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the equal remuneration action plan and the measures taken to promote the use of gender-neutral job evaluation systems and to indicate how they have impacted on the wage gap between men and women in the public and private sectors. Please also provide information on the use of the abovementioned manual in the health-care sector, including information on its impact.

6. Part III of the report form. Enforcement. The Committee notes the information provided by the FNV concerning the nature and number of cases dealt with and opinions expressed by the ETC relating to gender discrimination, including remuneration. The FNV also indicates that the High Court has issued a decision on the general principle of equal remuneration, which may have an impact on the future jurisprudence involving questions of principle relating to Convention No. 100. The Committee asks the Government to provide in its next report the details relating to this High Court decision as well as general information concerning the enforcement of the equal remuneration legislation by the courts, the labour inspectorate and the ETC.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report and the attached documentation and legislative texts.

1. The Committee notes the legislative developments with respect to equal remuneration of men and women, including the adoption of the Act of 21 December 2000 amending the Pensions and Savings Funds Act (and certain other Acts) and the Decree of 5 February 2002 providing for additional protection with respect to equal treatment of men and women in pensions in all respects, including benefits, modules and contributory arrangements. With respect to the comments previously raised by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) concerning the application of EC jurisprudence with respect to access of women and part-timers to pension schemes, and the limited participation of women in pension schemes due to the exclusion of certain job categories (merely administrative jobs and temporary work), the Committee notes the information on the cases handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission, with respect to the exclusion of part-timers and women from pension schemes, that provide more than the statutory requirements. It invites the Government to continue providing information on the practical application of the amendments of the Pensions and Savings Funds Act, the Equal Opportunities Act and the Civil Code, which guarantee equality of treatment between men and women with respect to pension schemes, as well as on the decisions handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission. Further, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, due to the European jurisprudence, the voluntary reparations of the pensions have become partially obligatory and that since the mid-1990s a large number of pension funds have begun correcting the pensions of women who were excluded in the past from pension arrangements. Noting that the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment, in June 2002, has called upon the social partners to investigate whether they could offer financial support for correcting the pensions of (older) women, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the corrective action taken with respect to women that have been excluded from participating in pension schemes.

2. Further with regard to the limited participation of women in pension schemes due to the exclusion of certain job categories (the so-called "white spots"), the Committee notes that the social partners have set the goal that all employees should have access to supplementary pension schemes and that the achievement of this goal will be evaluated in 2006. The Government indicates that, based on the outcome of this evaluation, it will decide whether, in order to combat exclusion from participating in pension schemes, there is a need to adopt legislation on the general operation of pension allocation. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the categories of jobs currently excluded from the pension schemes and to provide information on the progress made in achieving the goal set by the social partners. Please also supply a copy of the new Pensions Act, once adopted.

3. The Committee notes that the Commission on Equal Treatment is currently drawing up an inventory of the judicial decisions on the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act and that the Labour Inspectorate is undertaking further research into the distinctions made between full-time and part-time workers in collective agreements. Noting that both studies will be completed at the end of 2002, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the research. Noting also that, following the recommendations made by the Labour Foundation collective agreements that made distinctions between full-time and part-time workers are being revised, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard, and its impact on women’s and men’s average hourly wage differential.

4. The Committee notes that the Government completed its research concerning the requirement for equal remuneration in flexible pay systems, which consisted of: (i) a quantitative research component; and (ii) the development of a specific instrument to ensure equal remuneration. It notes from the information provided that these flexible remuneration systems are widely used and that some vigilance is needed because of apparent differences between men and women in flexible pay systems (for example, 9 per cent more men than women receive an individual bonus) and because certain job categories appear to have less access to variable pay systems; flexible pay appears to apply mostly to higher level posts and external or production-related functions, in which women are often under-represented. Noting that the new instrument, which is still being developed, aims to assist employers in assessing how equal remuneration is applied in flexible pay systems used in their organization, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on how equal remuneration is being ensured in the context of flexible pay systems and to provide a copy of the new instrument once developed.

5. In relation to job classification in the health sector, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that, with respect to the job evaluation system used in the health sector (Function Evaluation Health-care II System or FWG-II), the system has been amended and changed into a new system (FGW-III) that is owned by the Joint Employers’ Association for Health Care. It notes that the FGW-III is currently being introduced and that the Ministry for Health, Well-being and Sport has not received any complaints to date. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the new system with its next report.

6. Further to its observation, the Committee invites the Government to continue to provide data on the wage differentials between men and women in the public and private sectors and on the implementation of the measures taken or envisaged in the Action Plan on Equal Remuneration. Please also provide copies of any future labour inspectorate surveys as well as Circulars by the State Secretary of Social Affairs and Employment with respect to equal remuneration policy.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee welcomes and takes note of the periodical Evaluation of the Equal Treatment Act and related legislation (1994-2000), the Action Plan on Equal Remuneration of 2000 as well as the Circulars by the State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment on the implementation of the Plan. It notes that the Plan includes measures to promote the use of gender-neutral job evaluation systems and to ensure equal remuneration for men and women in new flexible wage systems, as well as measures to raise awareness on equal pay amongst the general public and the social partners and to stimulate the social partners to promote equal pay. The Committee notes with interest the series of ongoing activities to implement these policy measures, including the legislative developments with respect to equal remuneration in pensions, the dissemination of information on equal pay through the Internet and the development by the Commission on Equal Treatment of a "quickscan" aimed at rapidly assessing job evaluation systems and structures in organizations and ministries. It notes in particular the report "Weighing the balance: Towards an instrument for gender-neutral job evaluation" providing a legal analysis of the requirements of job evaluation systems which resulted in the development of an instrument to assess the gender neutrality of job evaluation systems ("Weighing the balance: A gender-neutral job evaluation manual"). The Committee notes that the manual has been widely disseminated and promoted by the social partners and that the Labour Foundation has developed a checklist for employers based on the manual to evaluate their remuneration systems. Noting that the manual and the checklist are currently being used and tested by a number of system users and will be evaluated in early 2004, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress made and to supply a copy of the evaluation report, when completed.

2. The Committee notes from the latest survey conducted by the Labour Inspectorate (2000) that the wage gap between men and women remained stable at 23 per cent in the private sector and 15 per cent in the public sector. However, taking into account individual and job-related factors, the wage gap between men and women reduced to 5 per cent (7 per cent in 1998) in the private sector and to 3 per cent in the public sector (4 per cent in 1998); it amounted, however, to 11 per cent when comparisons were made between full-time and part-time workers. The survey results further show that wage differentials between men and women increase with age and that in the private sector wage differentials increase when women get into higher level posts. The Committee notes that, in order to determine the exact reasons of these wage differentials, micro-level research into wage differentials has started. Noting that the impact of this research as well as that of the other abovementioned measures on the current wage gap can only be measured in 2004, the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to report that these activities have further reduced the existing remuneration gap between men and women in the private and public sectors.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and attached documentation as well as the report submitted in relation to Convention No. 111. The Committee also notes the comments and additional information supplied by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV).

1. The Committee notes the legislative developments concerning sex discrimination. It notes that in order to implement the Council Directive 98/52/EC of the Council of the European Union on the implementation of the burden of proof in cases of sexual discrimination, the Equal Opportunities Act and the Civil Code were amended. Under the new article 6a of the Equal Opportunities Act and article 7:646(8) of the Civil Code the burden of proof shifts to the defendant in cases of alleged discrimination. In this regard, the Committee notes that the study on the possibility of streamlining regulations regarding equal treatment was presented to Parliament in 1999 as part of the evaluation of the Equal Treatment Act (see paragraph 6) and it concluded that streamlining is not desirable in every case, but as far as the burden of proof was concerned the EU system could be applied in all cases. The Committee further notes that on 1 October 2000 the two year limit for equal pay claims established under section 11 of the Equal Opportunities Act was abolished and replaced with the customary time limit for pay-related claims of five years. The Committee notes with regret that the bill to amend section 7 of the Act, which provides that a woman can submit a claim for equal pay on the basis of a comparison of the salary a man earns for the work of equal or almost equal value performed "within the same enterprise", was discarded. The amendment was aimed at widening the scope for establishing a benchmark salary but was put aside on the basis that the Equal Treatment Commission gives a broad interpretation of the term "same enterprise". The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that even though the Equal Treatment Commission interprets the notion of "same enterprise" in a wide manner, the explicit inclusion in the text of the law of a broader benchmark would have been a guarantee against future possible narrow reading of the existing provision. Finally, the Committee notes that on 1 January 2001 a new Act entered into force amending the Pension and Saving Funds Act, among other laws. Noting with interest that the Act, in application of the principle of equal treatment of men and women, requires equal benefits for men and women in all respects, including option modules and contributory arrangements, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Act with its next report.

2. The Committee notes that according to the survey conducted by the Labour Inspectorate on the position of men and women in the private and public sectors in 1998, the wage gap did not decrease between 1996 and 1998. As in 1996, women working in the private sector earned on average 23 per cent less than men, while in the public sector the wage gap amounted to 15 per cent. Taking into consideration individual and job-related factors, in the private sector there was still an unexplained gap of 7 per cent and, in the public sector, a gap of 4 per cent, which could therefore be attributed, at least partly, to sex discrimination. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing data on the wage differentials between men and women in the private and public sector.

3. The Committee notes with interest that the Government adopted in May 2000 an Equal Remuneration Plan of Action. The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Action Plan and information on the implementation activities and measures put in place or contemplated and on their impact. The Committee notes the indication of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) that in the annex to the Action Plan a legal analysis of requirements of job evaluation schemes with regard to equal remuneration was published. Noting that this report is part of a three-stage study commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment aimed at developing an instrument to screen job evaluation systems for gender neutrality, the Committee asks the Government to send a copy of the report already published as well as the report on the other two stages of the study as soon as available. In relation to job classification, the Committee also notes that on 28 May 1998 the Equal Treatment Commission handed down a decision on the basic job evaluation system in the health-care sector, according to which the application of this system can lead to indirect discrimination on grounds of gender and thus contravenes equal treatment legislation. Noting that, following the Commission’s recommendations, a revised job evaluation system is now in place, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy.

4. The Committee notes that between 1 June 1998 and 13 April 2000 the Equal Treatment Commission handed down seven decisions on discrimination between men and women in relation to pensions schemes which provide more than the statutory minimum requirements. In four cases the Commission found that the relevant schemes were discriminatory. According to the observations of the FNV at least one of these decisions was not endorsed by the Court and female categories of workers were excluded from the pension schemes. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing information on the practical application of the amendments to the Equal Opportunities Act and the Civil Code, which guarantee equality of treatment between men and women in respect to pension schemes, as well as on decisions handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission. Information should also be provided on any other relevant judicial rulings. The Committee notes the FNV’s observation that, although direct discrimination against women and discrimination against part-timers, who are predominantly women, in pension schemes have to a large extent disappeared thanks to legal restrictions and European jurisprudence, two major problems still exist. The first is that employers and pension schemes are resisting the application of the EC Court of Justice’s ruling of 1994 according to which women and part-timers ought to have had access to pension schemes since April 1976. In this respect, it has to be taken into account that in December 1999 the High Court/Supreme Court ruled that the term of limitation was 30 years under the old Civil Code with the effect that reparation had to go back to April 1976. In addition, on 6 November 1998 the Supreme Court handed down a ruling admitting with retrospective force a retired stewardess to a more favourable occupational pension scheme, which was open only to pursers and assistant pursers, jobs for which women were not eligible at the time. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any initiatives taken to guarantee women access to pension schemes according to this jurisprudence. The second problem pointed out by the FNV is that one out of five female workers does not participate in pension schemes compared to one out of 20 male workers. According to the FNV the reason for the limited participation of women is that they work in jobs which are excluded, such as administrative ones, or because temporary workers are excluded. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the categories of jobs which are excluded from pension schemes and statistical data on the numbers of men and women employed.

5. The Committee notes the information on the decisions handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission between 1998 and 2000 concerning the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act. The Committee invites the Government to continue to provide information on the decisions of the Commission as well as on any relevant judicial rulings. The Committee further notes the information on the study of the Labour Inspectorate on the distinctions made, as at 31 December 1998, between full-time and part-time workers in 118 collective agreements covering around 3.8 million employees. The study found that 17 agreements, mainly in the commercial sector, apply only partially or not at all to part-time workers who work only 12-13 hours. This figure was approximately the same in 1991. However, the proportion of agreements providing that that the agreement will be applied proportionally increased from 21 per cent in 1991 to 32 per cent in 1998. The Committee notes that women are the most affected by these agreements because they are over represented among part-timers. Noting that the Government has decided to repeat the study on collective agreements, the Committee asks the Government to provide it as soon as completed. Please, also provide a copy of the report. The Committee also notes that following the Labour Inspectorate’s study, the Labour Foundation evaluated collective agreements in the light of the entry into force of the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act and social partners agreed that threshold provisions for part-timers were inappropriate given the trend towards more variation in working patterns. They repeated the recommendation of 1993 that bargaining parties should reconsider and change most of the provisions which made a distinction between full- and part-timers. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the follow up of this recommendation.

6. The Committee notes the information concerning the evaluation of the Equal Treatment Act presented in 1999. In particular it notes that the evaluation recognized that the "restrictive system" based on the provision according to which "the prohibition on discrimination shall not apply to indirect discrimination which is objectively justified" has given rise to problems, but that it did not advocate amending the Act. Moreover, the evaluation found that in some sectors the application of the Act was made difficult by the existence of accepted ideas and behaviour and, in some cases, was even resisted. Moreover, it found that the Act is an unexplored territory for many people to whom its provisions may apply and, in particular, few persons were found to be aware of the ban on discrimination against part-time workers. The difference between direct and indirect discrimination as well as the Commission and its work were also found to be unfamiliar. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide the recommendations included in the evaluation with its next report as well as information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement them. It also asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote awareness of measures that need to be taken to promote equal remuneration for work of equal value.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

1. The Committee notes the entry into force of the "Barber Directive" (96/97/EC of the Council of the European Union), which amends Directive 86/378/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. Following the enactment of the Barber Directive, the Committee notes with interest the amendment of the Equal Opportunities Act in March 1998 which prohibited discrimination between men and women in regard to the categories of persons eligible for pension provisions, the details of such provisions, and the implementation of pension schemes (section 12(b)). The Committee further notes the amendment of section 7:646 of the Civil Code which includes payments and entitlements under pension schemes as terms of employment. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these amendments, including any decisions handed down by the Equal Treatment Commission.

2. With reference to the entry into force on 1 November 1996 of the Equal Treatment (Working Hours) Act, the Committee notes that, since then, the Equal Treatment Commission has ruled on 13 petitions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to any violations and to continue providing information on the practical application of the Act. The Committee also notes that the Labour Inspectorate is preparing a study on the terms of employment of part-time workers in collective agreements. Noting that this is a repeat of a study undertaken in 1991, which showed that the legal status of part-time workers was not always equal to that of full-time workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with the findings and recommendations contained in the study.

3. With reference to the entry into force on 1 September 1994 of the Equal Treatment Act, the Committee notes the large rise in the number of petitions submitted to the Equal Treatment Commission (from 29 in 1994 to 509 in 1997) and that a significant percentage of the petitions claimed sex discrimination. It further notes from the Government's report the slight decline in 1997 (from 40.7 per cent in 1996 to 35.2 per cent in 1997) which, according to the Equal Treatment Commission's 1997 annual report, could probably be attributed to the enactment of legislation which enables claims to be based directly on new grounds (working hours, marital status) rather than on grounds of indirect discrimination under the Equal Treatment Act of 1994. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the number and types of petitions submitted and their outcome. The Committee notes with interest the information on Equal Treatment Commission Case 97-54, in which it found that a salary-scale system applied by the Minister of Education, which was based only on paid working experience and the last salary earned, while ignoring criteria such as education and unpaid experience relevant to the job, amounted to a form of indirect discrimination against women. It also notes that this decision has been taken into consideration in the regular talks between the Minister of Education and the unions representing teachers on the criteria to be used in determining the salaries of women returning to work. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information on any agreements reached between the Minister and the unions on criteria to be applied in establishing salary scales and on any measures taken or envisaged to implement the agreement.

4. Further to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that, in December 1995, a study was completed on the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunities Act. It notes that, on the basis of the findings of the study, a further study is to be conducted in 1998 to investigate the possibilities of streamlining regulations regarding equal treatment which are presently contained in a number of different Acts. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the findings and recommendations of the study.

5. The Committee notes with interest that sections 7 and 11 of the Equal Opportunities Act are to be amended so as to broaden the criteria on which the comparison is to be based for determining "work of equal value" (i.e. "someone working in the same undertaking", whereby "undertaking" is defined and interpreted narrowly), and that the limitation period for equal pay claims, which now stands at two years, will be brought in line with the generally applicable limitation period for pay claims laid down in the Civil Code. Noting that an amendment to widen the basis of comparison beyond the enterprise would promote the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with copies of the amendments, once adopted. Furthermore, the Committee notes that additional legislative amendments will be examined upon completion of the evaluation of the Equal Treatment Act planned for 1999. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the findings and recommendations of the evaluation, including information on measures taken or envisaged to implement the recommendations.

6. The Committee notes the Government's statement that, so far, the Equal Treatment Commission has not handed down any decisions on the question of whether the job evaluation system employed in the health-care sector is in accordance with the equality legislation, and requests the Government to provide it with relevant information once it becomes available.

7. Further to its previous direct request, the Committee notes with interest the continued initiative by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs to examine regularly the extent to which the wage gap between men and women can be explained by differences in personal circumstances and jobs. It notes that the 1996 study showed that the average gross hourly pay rate for women aged 23 and over was 24 per cent lower than for men. The study showed that, after a regression analysis was undertaken taking into account individual and job-related factors, there was still a difference of 7 per cent in pay that could not be accounted for and could therefore, at least partly, be ascribed to sex discrimination. The Committee, noting that the unadjusted difference in pay between men and women aged 23 and over was 26 per cent in 1993 as compared to 24 per cent in 1996, while the adjusted difference fell from 9 per cent in 1993 to 7 per cent in 1996, requests the Government to continue, in future reports, to indicate the results of such reviews. Furthermore, noting the Government's statement that the adjusted 7 per cent difference in pay between men and women may partly be due to the fact that job evaluation systems are not gender-neutral, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with information on the findings and recommendations arising from the study on job evaluation schemes undertaken in 1998.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. Further to its observation, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the entry into force on 1 September 1994 of the Equal Treatment Act, which prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, sex in the fields of employment, school and career guidance and commercial and other goods and services. It also notes that the Equal Opportunities Act 1989 and section 1637ij of the Civil Code, including the specific rules on equal pay, have remained in force, so that the general rules on sex discrimination contained in the new legislation apply only to cases not covered by the earlier legislation. The Committee also notes that a new Equal Opportunities Commission (set up in September 1994 to deal with cases covered by all of the aforementioned legislation) has more extensive powers than the previous Commission and may, when giving its opinion, make recommendations to the person who is discriminating and ask the courts to give a binding judgement as to whether a particular action conflicts with the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the legislation and on the activities of the Commission, as these relate to the scope of the Convention. Please provide information on any measures taken to improve the effectiveness of the equality legislation which emanate from the evaluation concluded in December 1995. The Committee would also be grateful for information on the Commission's opinion as to whether the job evaluation system employed in the health care sector is in accordance with the equality legislation.

2. The Committee notes with interest the initiative taken by the inspectorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment to examine regularly the extent to which the wage gap between men and women can be explained by differences in personal circumstances and jobs. It notes that the survey based on the situation as at October 1993 disclosed that, after adjusting for these differences, the wage gap of 26 per cent was reduced to 9 per cent. Please continue, in future reports, to indicate the results of these reviews.

3. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes that an information booklet was published by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment in 1995 to encourage works councils to examine whether the principle of equal pay is being applied in their companies and to raise the issue, if necessary, in consultations with the employer or with the Equal Opportunities Commission. Please indicate, in future reports, any further action taken to promote the application of equal pay in collective labour agreements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report and in the attached documentation.

1. In a previous comment, the Committee noted comments by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) stating that the various forms of flexible employment relationships, which were undertaken mainly by women, were a primary source of pay inequality. The Committee notes with interest that the issue of the lower pay received by women employed on a flexible basis (temporary contract and an hourly wage) in relation to the pay received by full-time employees on permanent contract led to a case before the Supreme Court (Agfa judgement, 8 April 1994, Case No. 15 292). The district court had upheld the plaintiff's claim for equal pay on the grounds that the employment relationship between the plaintiff and her employer was virtually the same as that between full-time employees and the employer (in terms of the long duration and permanent character of her activities) deciding that, accordingly, the original character of the employment relationship had disappeared. The district court took into account the generally accepted principle that employees are entitled to fair pay, which means, inter alia, that equal work performed in the same conditions should receive equal pay, unless there are objective grounds that justify otherwise and held that under section 1638z of the Civil Code - which requires acting as a good employer - that the employer was obliged to remunerate the plaintiff in the same manner as her colleagues on permanent contracts. The Supreme Court upheld this judgement.

2. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest that the Parliament enacted legislation (with effect as from 1 November 1996), which prohibits discrimination between employees on the basis of their working hours, and as regards the conditions under which an employment contract is entered into, extended or terminated. According to the Government, this means that action against unequal treatment on the grounds of working part time can be taken by means of a less complicated procedure than invoking the ban on indirect sex discrimination. The Government also considers this improvement in the legal status of part-time workers might encourage more men to undertake part-time jobs, thereby promoting a more equal distribution of paid and unpaid work between men and women. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of this legislation and to furnish information on its application in practice.

3. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous direct requests, the Committee notes the Government's report.

1. The Committee notes from the report that a survey was carried out by the Wages Department (LTD) in 1991 on equal remuneration between the sexes in all branches of the Industry. The study showed that, although there were no cases of direct discrimination, there were cases of indirect discrimination in 78 out of the 635 companies covered by the survey. The findings were communicated back to all the employers so as to raise their attention to the problem of indirect pay discrimination. The Government points out, however, that under section 21 of the 1989 Equal Treatment Act the Minister of Social Affairs was not obliged to take action against the employers since such cases are linked to the objective justification of the discrimination in the particular situation and thus fall outside of the scope of such follow-up action.

The Committee requests the Government to explain in its next report how employers guilty of indirect pay discrimination between men and women are sanctioned, bearing in mind that section 1 of the 1989 Act defines indirect discrimination as "discrimination based on characteristics other than sex which result in discrimination on grounds of sex, unless such discrimination is justified objectively". For instance, are there any court cases showing how the phrase "justified objectively" is to be applied?

2. Regarding its previous comments on "breadwinner premiums" which were found to be a form of indirect discrimination under the 1989 Act, the Committee notes that the LTD's 1991 survey did not encounter any such discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of the new survey mentioned in the report which is presently being undertaken by the Collective Employment Conditions Department (CAO) concerning possible remunerative preference given to "breadwinners" in collective agreements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Regarding the problem of applying the equal pay principle in flexible labour relations, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which legislation is interpreted so as to apply to workers in flexible employment relationships, such as flexible hours of work. It notes the information in the Government's report on the situation of workers with flexible employment relationships and its statements according to which (1) no cases of unequal remuneration related to flexible labour relationships have been submitted to a committee or court; (2) flexible employment relations in the central Government and the other levels of public employment are relatively rare; and (3) these relationships, when they exist, are subject to the relevant public service regulations. Noting the Government's statement that a survey is currently under way into the effectiveness of equal treatment legislation, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report any cases of workers with flexible employment relationships suffering unequal pay. It would also appreciate receiving a copy of the findings of the said survey.

2. The Committee had previously commented on the possibility of extending the comparison between wages of women in undertakings where there was no possibility for comparison between women and men doing work of equal value, with wages of men in similar undertakings. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the provision in the Equal Treatment Act, 1989, prescribing equal pay for men and women doing almost the same work, allows for such a comparison and that the Supreme Court, in a 1987 decision, had relied on this. It also notes with interest the Government's statement that its policy is to reduce situations where there are no possibilities for comparison by promoting the removal of barriers between male and female occupations and posts, as well as its investigations into whether the job ranking systems used in hospitals and the commercial services sector are free from sex discrimination elements (which showed that features of male posts are more and better represented than those of womens' posts and that women are rarely involved in the introduction and implementation of job ranking). It also notes that, according to the Government, the necessity of promoting comparisons between similar undertakings does not occur in the central Government as the same job ranking system applies across the board there.

The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on how the possibility of promoting equal remuneration by comparing men's and women's wages in similar undertakings is ensured under the present legislation (for example, in decisions of the Commission for Equal Treatment of Men and Women in Employment or of the courts) and on any steps taken to encourage the use of the said comparisons to promote equal remuneration between the sexes. It would also like to receive information on the outcome of the joint follow-up study for eliminating possible elements of sexual discrimination in hospitals, which the parties to the collective labour agreements in this sector intend to carry out.

3. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on certain other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and attached documentation.

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in response to the Committee's previous comment regarding the surveys undertaken by the Wages Inspection Department (LTD), which disclosed some cases of non-conformity with the 1975 equal pay legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made to overcome the problems identified by the LTD, as a result of the role taken by the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment under the new legislation.

2. The Committee notes with interest the 1988 study undertaken by the LTD concerning equal pay in the retail trade sector, which noted that the "breadwinner premiums" (which appear to be paid only to the person designated as the sole breadwinner in the family) are a form of indirect discrimination, in contravention of the Equal Treatment Act, 1989. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply further information concerning the allocation of these premiums in general and would indicate whether, in the light of this study, consideration is being given to reviewing the basis on which they are awarded.

3. The Committee also notes with interest the information concerning the activities of the Equal Rights Commission, including the cases on equal pay dealt with by the Commission. The Committee requests the Government to continue to furnish such information, which indicates how the Convention is applied in practice, in its future reports.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. The Committee notes that, commenting on the application of the Convention, the Netherlands Trade Union Federation (FNV) has stated that the various forms of flexible employment relationships (viz. homework, tele-work, freelance and stand-by work) which are undertaken mostly by women, are the primary source of pay inequality. Women who carry out these forms of employment are unable to invoke any or most of the legislation proscribing discrimination because of the type of contract under which they are employed. According to the FNV, the choice of contract is mainly, if not entirely, determined by the employer (even though the employee does not object or personally opts for various elements of flexible employment). The FNV calls upon the Government to adopt a more energetic policy, including taking legislative measures, to ensure that the majority of workers engaged in these forms of employment do not remain outside the scope of legal protection. The FNV considers that such action would facilitate the elimination of large-scale inequalities in remuneration.

The Committee notes that, in responding to the above comment, the Government has stated that the problem of so-called flexible labour relations is considered to be an important policy issue in the country. The Government also states that Convention No. 100 does not specifically oblige governments to take the action requested by the FNV.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that all categories of workers are covered by the equal pay provisions of the Equal Treatment for Men and Women Act, 1989, the only condition under section 1(b) of the Act being that the work be performed under the authority of an employer (an individual, a body corporate or other competent authority). The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report concerning the manner in which the legislation in force is interpreted by the relevant authorities and tribunals to apply to those workers about whom the FNV has expressed concern.

2. In its previous direct request, the Committee had noted that pursuant to the above-mentioned 1989 Act, the basis for comparing remuneration is restricted to the wage normally received by a worker of the other sex in the same undertaking for work of equal value or, failing that, for work of virtually equal value (section 7(1)), whereas section 3(2) of the 1975 equal pay legislation also allowed for the possibility, in cases where no work of equal or approximately equal value was done by a worker of the other sex in the undertaking where the worker concerned was employed, of extending the comparison to the wage normally received by a worker of the other sex in an undertaking of as nearly as possible the same kind in the same sector for work of equal value or, in the absence of such work, for work of approximately equal value. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the means by which women workers who are heavily concentrated in certain sectors of activity, where the possibilities of comparison may be insufficient at the level of the enterprise, may seek to have their claims for equal pay determined. The Committee notes from the report of the Government that the possibility for extending the scope of comparison to another undertaking, as provided for under the 1975 Act, was never used in practice for the reason that it is very hard to prove that differences in wages between employees in different companies are based on sex discrimination, as this can easily be countered by stating that one company just pays better for work of the same value than another company. As the provision in question was never used, the Government did not include it in the new legislation.

The Committee recognises that the question of determining how broadly comparisons between the jobs performed by men and women should be permitted is a particularly difficult aspect of applying the Convention. Nevertheless, it is evident that adequate possibilities for comparison must be available if the principle of equal pay is to have any application in a sex-segregated labour market. As the Committee stated in its 1986 General Survey, it is essential, in order to ensure equal remuneration in an industry employing mostly women, that there be a basis of comparison outside the limits of the establishment or enterprise concerned. This is not to say that factors affecting wage levels which are outside the scope of the Convention (such as geographical location, surplus or scarcity of particular skills or the pay policies of individual enterprises) are to be excluded from consideration. It is true that differences in remuneration for women employed in different enterprises but engaged in work of equal value may be due to the fact that one company pays its workers at a higher rate. However, there may be a basis for inferring discrimination on the basis of sex if, in examining the total wage structure of the enterprises in question, it becomes apparent that in one company, there is a consistently wider differential between female and male employees than in another comparable enterprise. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the 1975 equal pay legislation also provided that where comparisons were made outside the undertaking (pursuant to section 3(2)), account was to be taken of "general differences in the wage structures of the undertakings concerned" (section 5(3)). While acknowledging the difficulties involved in broadening the scope of comparison, the Committee requests the Government to further consider how, in practice, women workers who find their possibilities for comparison insufficient at the level of the enterprise may seek to enforce their right to equal pay for work of equal value.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Further to its previous comments the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and in the documentation made available subsequently.

1. The Committee notes the entry into force on 1 July 1989 of the Equal Treatment for Men and Women Act ("Reparation Act") which consolidates earlier equality legislation (the Equal Wages for Women and Men Act, 1975, and the Men and Women (Equal Treatment) Act, 1980). The Committee notes with interest the amendments made in the 1989 Act which are aimed at achieving more effective operation of the principle of equal treatment, including (i) the extension of the scope of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value from work situations where there was a contract of employment or an official appointment to almost any work situation where one person is in a position of authority over another, whether in the public or private sector; (ii) removal of the obligation to seek advice from the Equal Treatment Commission before presenting a claim in court; (iii) enabling representative advisory bodies (such as works councils) and interest groups (e.g. trade unions and employers), as well as individual employees, to request the Equal Treatment Commission to investigate alleged discriminations; and (iv) the possibility of group action. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether all categories of workers are now covered by the equal pay provisions as amended. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide information concerning any measures to publicise and promote the provisions of this legislation, together with details concerning its enforcement by the Commission on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Employment or the courts.

2. The Committee notes that pursuant to the 1989 amendment, the basis for comparing remuneration is restricted to the wage normally received by a worker of the other sex in the same undertaking for work of equal value, or failing that for work of virtually equal value (section 7(1)), whereas the 1975 equal pay legislation also allowed for the possibility, in cases where no work of equal or approximately equal value was done by a worker of the other sex in the undertaking where the worker concerned was employed, of extending the comparison to the wage normally received by a worker of the other sex in an undertaking of as nearly as possible the same kind in the same sector for work of equal value or, in the absence of such work, for work of approximately equal value (section 3(2)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the means by which women workers who are heavily concentrated in certain sectors of activity, where the possibilities of comparison may be insufficient at the level of the enterprise, may seek to have their claims for equal pay determined.

3. The Committee notes from the surveys undertaken by the Wages Department (LTD) that some cases of non-conformity with the 1975 equal pay legislation were disclosed (viz. Reports concerning application of the Act in Dutch Trade and Industry (1985), the Insurance Trade (1988) and the Retail Trade (1989)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any action taken or considered to bring about wage equality in those cases.