|
Iceland
[With regards to Article 4 - The right to a fair remuneration; Paragraph 3 - Non-discrimination between men and women workers with respect to remuneration]. The Committee noted that in Iceland a new Act on the Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (No. 28 of 1991) had been introduced during the reference period. It noted that a separate Complaints Committee had been established to investigate alleged breaches of the Act and to make recommendations to the parties concerned on the basis of its findings. It noted that although the conclusions of the Complaints Committee were not binding on the parties, the Committee could take legal action in order to establish formal recognition of the legal rights of the complainant. The Committee noted that the burden of proof had been reversed in cases brought before the Complaints Committee alleging sexual discrimination. The burden now lay on the employer to prove that the treatment complained of was not based on the sex of the complainant. The Committee noted this improvement and wished to know in this respect whether the burden had also been reversed for cases taken directly by an individual before the courts rather than to the Complaints Committee. The Committee took note of the answer to its previous questions regarding the remedies available to an individual taking an action alleging sex discrimination s independently of the Complaints Committee. An individual can seek a declaration that the impugned measure, treatment or provision is null and void in addition to seeking compensation, while the Complaints Committee can only seek compensation and demand recognition of all of the complainant's legal rights. Ireland [With regards to Article 8 - The right of employed women to protection; Paragraph 1 - Maternity leave]. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Irish report in respect of this provision, including the fact that only female employees who satisfied certain contribution conditions received a maternity allowance equal to 70% of their wages; it understood that other female employees received only a maternity allowance amounting to L50 per week (in July 1991). The Committee requested confirmation that such was the case and it wished to know who paid these various allowances and what conditions were attached to the payment of the allowance equal to 70% of wages. The Committee noted with interest that the 70% allowance related to gross earnings and that, in view of taxation procedures (which do not take the maternity allowance into account in respect of assessable income, but do take it into account in respect of the tax-free allowance), the income of female workers on maternity leave was close to 100% of their net wage, which was satisfactory. Having noted that this allowance was subject to a ceiling of L154 per week, the Committee asked whether and how the allowance was supplemented for female employees whose wages were higher than the ceiling. On the other hand, the Committee considered that the maternity allowance amounting to L50 was too low, in relation to the previous income of the female employee (according to the report the average female industrial wage is L132 per week), to be considered adequate. Moreover, the Committee noted with satisfaction the extension of the scope of the 1981 Maternity Protection of Employees Act: the Social Welfare (Employment of Inconsiderable Extent) (No. 2) Regulations, 1991. which guarantee the full range of benefits, including maternity allowances, for employees whose weekly earnings are L25 or more. The Committee observed, however, that a number of female employees continued to be denied access to maternity benefits. As not all female employees receive maternity benefits and, of those who do, some do not receive benefits of an adequate amount, the Committee was obliged to conclude that, in this connection, the situation was not in conformity with the requirements of the Charter. As regards maternity leave, from which some female workers, are also excluded, the Committee noted that the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, had extended the scope of the 1981 Act to all regular part-time female employees who have worked at least eight hours per week (previously eighteen hours) over a period of not less than thirteen weeks with the same employer. While appreciating the progress thus achieved, the Committee was obliged to note that the benefit of maternity leave was still not enjoyed by all female employees, which is an unsatisfactory situation. The Committee also took note of the information concerning the duration of leave, which is fourteen weeks, of which four weeks must be taken before confinement and four weeks afterwards. It noted that most women took ten weeks of post-natal leave, to which four weeks without benefits could be added. However, given the fact that only four weeks' compulsory leave had to be taken after confinement whereas, according to the case-law of the Committee (Conclusions VIII, p. 123), the minimum duration of compulsory post-natal leave should be six weeks, the Committee was unable to consider that the situation was satisfactory. It was therefore obliged to conclude that with regard to maternity leave, the situation was still not in compliance with the requirements of the Charter.
|