Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2017, publiée 107ème session CIT (2018)

Convention (n° 100) sur l'égalité de rémunération, 1951 - Japon (Ratification: 1967)

The Committee notes the observations of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) which were annexed to the Government’s report received on 28 October 2016. It further notes the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (ZENROREN), received on 3 October 2016, the observations of the Japanese Federation of Co-op Labour Unions (SEIKYO–ROREN), received on 24 May 2016, and the observations of Zensekiyu Showa–Shell Labour Union (ZSSLU), received on 8 February 2016.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the tripartite committee (representation made under article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee recalls the report adopted on 11 November 2011 of the tripartite committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation submitted by the ZSSLU (GB.312/INS/15/3). The tripartite committee concluded that further measures were needed, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to promote and ensure equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value in law and practice in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, and to strengthen the implementation and monitoring of the existing legislation and measures, including measures to determine the relative value of jobs (paragraph 57).

Articles 1 and 2. Work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been pointing out that section 4 of the Labour Standards Act, which provides that “an employer shall not engage in discriminatory treatment of a women as compared to a man with respect to wages by reason of the worker being a women”, does not fully reflect the principle of the Convention. The Government once again expresses the view in its report that it considers the requirements of the Convention to be met as long as the payroll system does not allow discrimination in wages between men and women solely on the basis of the worker being a women. The Committee is bound once again to observe that the protection against wage discrimination in section 4 is too limited because it does not capture the concept of “work of equal value” which is fundamental to the full application of the Convention. The Committee notes that JTUC–RENGO, ZENROREN and ZSSLU all hold the view that section 4 is inadequate to protect against the gender-based wage discrimination that exists in the country and that guidance on the interpretation of section 4 does not help address the indirect discrimination, for example based on job classifications, that constitutes a substantial cause of the gender pay gap. According to JTUC–RENGO, the law reflects Government policy to promote only equal pay for equal work between men and women, and does not address the gender pay gap resulting from job ratings, job types or employment status. The Committee also recalls that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which prohibits discrimination in recruitment, appointment and promotion, does not prohibit discrimination in remuneration.

The Committee notes the adoption of a new Law on the Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace (Law No. 64 of 2015) which entered into force on 1 April 2016. This Law calls on national and local government agencies and private sector employers with over 300 employees to: collect and analyse data on the ratio of women and men within the enterprise in areas such as new hires, hours worked, years of service and classification levels; and formulate and announce enterprise-level action plans containing quantitative targets and actions for their achievement within specified timeframes. The Act also provides for incentives and certification of companies that are proactive in the promotion of women. The Government considers that through the steady implementation of the Act, the ratio of women in management positions will increase and the disparity between men and women in the number of years of service will be diminished, thereby reducing the gender wage disparity which it believes is caused significantly by these two factors. From the Government’s report and the summary of the White Paper on Gender Equality issued by the Cabinet Office of the Government in June 2017, the Committee notes the information on the implementation of Act No. 64 of 2015, in both the public and private sectors, as well as other measures taken to encourage women’s participation in employment and to support the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities. While the Committee welcomes the new Act and hopes that it will serve to enhance the position of women in employment, particularly in career track and management positions, it notes that the Act is implemented through voluntary compliance, without the requirement for labour–management dialogue; the setting of goals and targets is also left to the discretion of each company without any encouragement to employers to address the pay scales of women and men based on the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee is taking up other aspects of the Act concerning the balancing of work and family responsibilities in its comments on the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156).

Given that the wage disparity between men and women narrowed only very slightly between 2012 and 2015 with a remaining wage gap of 26.3 per cent, the Committee once again urges the Government to take immediate and concrete action to ensure the existence of a legislative framework clearly establishing the right to equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing detailed information on the measures taken and progress achieved in this regard, as well as information on the application of the existing legislation which has a demonstrated impact on equal remuneration between men and women, including any administrative guidance issued. Noting the Government’s reliance on the implementation of the new Law on Promotion of Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace to improve the employment situation of women in practice, the Committee asks the Government to consider adding “the ratio of women’s pay to men’s pay” as additional data required to be collected under the Act, analysed and included in the announced action plans. The Committee asks the Government to continue stepping up its efforts to tackle all the areas that directly and indirectly contribute to the significant gender pay gap, including horizontal and vertical occupational gender segregation.

Non-regular employment: part-time and fixed-term employment. The Committee notes that the majority of women continue to be employed in non regular employment (part-time or fixed-term) and the majority of men continue to be employed in regular employment. The Government provides statistics indicating that 70 per cent of part-time workers are women. Women who work fewer than 35 hours a week represent 46.7 per cent of the total number of female employees. In its observations, ZENROREN points out that the number of non regular workers is increasing, that the ratio of women to men non-regular workers is rising in certain fields, and that there are many women who wish to return from childbirth or childrearing into regular employment. It points to the low wages of non-regular employees in relation to their job content and indicates that there are no systems in place to correct the wage gaps between non regular employment female dominated occupations and positions in regular employment. The Committee considers that the difference of treatment between regular and non-regular employment with respect to remuneration impinges on the application of the Convention. It notes that a number of initiatives have been taken to address issues related to non-regular employment, including amendments to the Part-time Workers Act, the Labour Contracts Act, the Dispatched Workers Act and the preparation of new equal pay legislation and guidance on equality between non-regular and regular employment. The ZSSLU indicates that the current reviews of non-regular work under these Acts do not take into account the gender discrimination dimension, nor are they aimed at tackling the structural gender inequalities created through the different treatment of regular and non-regular employment. The ZENROREN is of the view that the principle of equal treatment between regular and non-regular workers is still not applied. The ZSSLU questions whether the changes in the organization of dispatched workers, pursuant to the amendment of 2015 to the Dispatched Workers Act, will help address the disparities faced by these workers, many of whom are women. It believes that the provision of the Labour Contracts Act that requires the elimination of unreasonable discrepancies between workers with indefinite and fixed-term contracts may not be fully adequate for dispatched workers. ZSSLU further notes that the new equal pay legislation only guides policy and does not ensure any rights of workers, nor does it provide for appraisals of the value of jobs. Recalling that the Convention applies to both regular and non-regular employment, and taking into account the gender dimension of the employment structure, including the high number of women in part-time work and the resulting impact on the gender pay gap, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to address the undervaluation of female dominated occupations, to facilitate objective job evaluations and adjust remuneration levels across regular and non-regular employment classifications in both the public and private sectors, and on the measures taken to improve women’s opportunities to enter and re-enter regular employment. The Committee understands that new draft guidelines on the employment of regular and non-regular workers are under development and asks the Government to supply a copy of the guidelines when they have been adopted and information on the measures taken to promote their application in practice. The Committee also asks the Government to continue providing statistics, disaggregated by sex, on participation and salary levels of men and women in temporary work, dispatch labour, as well as part-time, fixed term and full-time indefinite employment.

Part-time work. Further to its previous comments on part-time work, the Committee recalls the adoption of Act No. 27 of 2014 to amend the Part-time Workers Act, which extended the protection against discriminatory treatment to fixed-term, as well as indefinite duration contracts, where disparities are considered to be unreasonable. It further recalls that the provisions of the Part-time Workers Act before the revision were very limited and had little impact on women in part time work. The Government indicates that the most recent revision should have the effect of improving the treatment and increasing the wages of part-time workers and that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is actively promoting the Act by providing advice to employers, but that no statistics on the impact of the Act are yet available. The JTUC–RENGO and SEIKYO–ROREN, however, question whether the revision will be sufficient to have a positive impact on gender equality and the JTUC–RENGO believes that guidelines are needed to clarify the interpretation of new section 8 concerning which disparities would not be permitted.

With respect to temporary and part-time local government officials, the Committee notes that women continue to be concentrated in temporary and part time positions in local government and that job categories are highly gender segregated. The Committee notes that in 2012 women represented 57.3 per cent of temporary part-time staff in prefectures, 68.7 per cent in the Cabinet Office and 80.3 per cent in municipalities, where they were highly concentrated in occupations such as general office workers, nurses, childcare professionals and school cooks. It notes the Government’s indication that local governments shall, under the terms of the notification of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of 4 July 2014, continue to ensure the treatment of temporary and part time employees in accordance with the content of their duties and responsibilities. JTUC–RENGO observes that these workers are subject to different criteria for appointment on each workplace, even where the job types and work duties are the same. To resolve the confusion, it calls on the Government to undertake a survey of job types and work duties and to establish a framework for revising the pay scales of local government organizations. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on how section 8 of the Part-time Workers Act has been interpreted, including any guidance issued, and its impact on part-time workers, including the number of men and women whose treatment and wage rates have changed as a result of the amendment. Noting that the amendment to the Labour Contracts Act on the right to request conversion from fixed-term to indefinite employment will come into effect in 2018, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the conversions that have been requested, including from part-time to full-time, and from fixed-term to indefinite positions, and to provide this statistical information disaggregated by sex. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to address the issues raised by JTUC–RENGO with respect to the classification of jobs in the local public service.

Career-tracking systems. Further to its previous comments, the Committee reiterates its concern at the impact on pay disparity between men and women of the career-tracking system introduced by the employment management categories in the context of Guidelines issued under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEO), due to the low representation of women in the main (integrated) career track. The Committee notes the observations of JTUC–RENGO that this system permits a gender-based classification system of employment management in which men are viewed as belonging to a main career track and women to a non-career track. The Committee notes that the EEO Guidelines were revised in 2014 to provide additional examples of how to manage the differences of treatment in the two tracks in accordance with the law. The Committee notes that both JTUC–RENGO and ZENROREN believe that the Guidelines only encourage the gender pay gap. The ZSSLU is of the view that these classifications limit the promotion and employment opportunities of women and are more responsible for the wage disparity than years of service. It adds that, despite the Guidelines, broad discretion is left to companies for the classification of employment management categories; that jobs should be objectively evaluated and compared across career tracks and not only within tracks; and, that mobility requirements should not be the determining element for placement in the integrated career track. In this regard, the Committee welcomes the consensus reached by the Government and representatives of employers and employees to widen the scope of unlawful indirect discrimination, in order to provide that transfers cannot be a requirement in recruitment, employment, promotion or change in job type, without reasonable grounds. The Committee also notes from the summary of court cases in the Government’s report that the different employment management categories continue to operate in practice, at least in some cases, and have the effect of perpetuating gender-based salary classifications, and are not based on skills or job-related inherent requirements. Given the persistently low representation of women in the main career track and the consequent impact on pay disparity, the Committee urges the Government to step up its efforts to increase the percentage of women in the integrated career track, including both new hires and conversions from the general track, and to provide information on any measures taken to promote objective job evaluations across the tracks. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the changes on the widening of the scope of prohibited indirect discrimination based on transfer requirements and the manner in which the concept of “reasonableness” has been interpreted.

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