Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1975 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities > Report No. 09 - Employmen Training and Working Conditions

REPORT

1. Introduction

The Joint Committee has examined a proposal for a Council Directive on equal treatment for men and women workers (access to employment and vocational training and advancement, and working conditions). This proposal is an important part of the Social Action Programme adopted by the Council on 21st January, 1974 and is expected to be adopted by the Council this year. It can be viewed against the background of the recent legislation introducing the principle of equal pay for equal work.

2. Commission’s Proposals

The provisions of the draft Directive are summarised in the Appendix to this report. Their primary object is to improve the position of women in the field of employment by securing for them equal treatment with male workers. This is to be achieved by the adoption of a principle of equal treatment which is defined as “the elimination of all discrimination based on sex, or on marital or family status, including the adoption of appropriate measures to provide women with equal opportunity in employment, vocational training and promotion and working conditions”. Member States are to be required to implement the proposals within one year.

3. Joint Committee’s View

The Joint Committee is in wholehearted agreement with the basic objective of securing equal treatment for men and women workers. It welcomes the proposals as an important development designed to enrich human experience and promote an equitable society. If in this report the Joint Committee concentrates on the difficulties it sees about implementing the proposals in full it does so in the belief that these difficulties can be overcome and in the hope that the application of an admirable principle may not be frustrated by the realities of the situation.

4. Social Security

The draft Directive envisages the elimination of discrimination based on sex or marital or family status in respect of working conditions and in this category it includes “social security provisions”.

In Ireland the social services even those directly concerned with the security of workers are viewed as an application of scarce resources to greatest needs. The principle of equal treatment must to some extent conflict with this approach because, strictly construed, it would seem to mean the same benefit for every person whether that person has dependants or not or be male or female. It might also involve the discontinuance of a benefit such as the maternity allowance which is paid to women only.

While funds are necessarily limited the Joint Committee does not accept that a social security scheme which ignores the needs of the beneficiary can be equitable. Subject to this it would favour the elimination of any differentiation between men and women where their individual circumstances are similar.

An extension of the pay-related benefit scheme to widen the category of beneficiaries and to increase the level of payments would be progress in the direction which the Commission indicates but a major extension can hardly be expected within one year. Indeed in the matter of social security generally the time limit allowed seems altogether too short having regard to the cost involved.

The Joint Committee concludes that the principle which may promote the Commission’s objective in the area of employment generally is not necessarily applicable in the field of social security. In the Joint Committee’s view it would be preferable if the social security provision were omitted from the proposed Directive and the Commission were to put forward separate proposals showing in greater detail how the adaption of existing social security systems to meet the aims of the Social Action Programme might proceed.

5. Education and Training

The proposed Directive envisages access to general education and vocational training being determined solely by individual abilities and aspirations. Member States are therefore to be required to ensure that equal standards and level not merely of vocational training but also of general education shall be available to all.

The inclusion of general education arises from the fear that the educational system, both general and vocational, may tend to reinforce traditional ideas that women are not suitable for some jobs. Thus schools may not provide particular courses for boys or girls either because it is felt that they would be of no value to the individual boy or girl in the careers open to them or because the established pattern of our educational system makes it difficult for them to provide such courses. It is not considered that the system of general education in this country consciously discriminates against girls. Some inequality there may be due to the non-availability of certain subjects. Of course it is precisely this kind of inequality that the proposed Directive seeks to eliminate. It may arise because of the size of the school to which access is available or to sociological factors. Discrimination arising from size or locality can operate against boys as well as girls.

In the long run this problem is most likely to be solved by an extension of co-education. This development has already been taking place in this country. Of the 833 secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools in this country 125 secondary, 218 vocational, 15 community and 14 comprehensive schools are already co-educational. The Joint Committee believes that as access to all jobs in all sectors becomes available to women the educational system should respond and this may well lead to more co-educational schools emerging.

In the matter of vocational training the Joint Committee assumes that the principle of equal treatment does not imply that every form of training must necessarily be open to both men and women. For example AnCO is already operating three specialised training courses for women seeking to re-enter employment. These courses presumably do not conflict with the general policy of the Commission’s proposals.

6. Existing Protective Legislation

In various statutes and subordinate legislation made thereunder provision is made for the particular protection of women workers. Where these measures have the effect of excluding women from some forms of employment the proposal is that they be repealed, the Commission’s view being that the considerations on which they are based are no longer viable. For example the prohibition on employing women during certain hours in some trades has the effect of excluding them from shift work and so reducing their employment opportunities. In Ireland the principal statutes involved are the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1936 and 1944, Shops (Conditions of Employment) Acts, 1938 and 1942, Factories Act, 1955 and Mines and Quarries Act, 1965.

The Joint Committee assumes that the implementation of the proposed Directive in this respect will proceed on a pragmatic basis. If it is considered that a particular provision has little value and has clearly an inhibiting effect on job opportunities then the proposed Directive clearly demands its removal. In other cases a better course might be to draft new provisions covering both men and women. It would seem, however, that some provisions affecting women only must remain. It would be strange indeed if in the interest of improving her employment opportunities such a provision as the one designed to protect a woman from being exposed to chemicals or radiation during child bearing years had to be repealed.

7. Sanctions

The draft Directive requires Member States to introduce measures enabling persons aggrieved by the non-application of the principle of equal treatment “to pursue their claims by judicial process after possible recourse to other competent authorities”.

By analogy with the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 it would seem that this provision can be readily implemented in regard to access to employment, promotion and dismissals by enabling an aggrieved person to complain to the Equal Pay Commissioner and the Labour Court with a right of appeal to a court on a point of law. If social security is included the existing statutory system of appeals would also be sufficient.

In regard to general education and vocational education some difficulty can be foreseen. In the first place it may well be difficult to see against which party a charge of discrimination may lie. Conceivably it might be against the State, a particular school, a trade union or even parents. Nevertheless whatever the difficulties it seems that the proposed Directive will require some administrative body being set up to investigate complaints with an appeal therefrom on a point of law to a court.

(Signed) CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,

Chairman of the Joint Committee.

4th June, 1975.