Commission finds unequal pay for new teachers discriminatory

Download article in original language : NL0102124NNL.DOC

In 1985, the Dutch government and education trade unions agreed to lower the salaries of newly-recruited teachers, in order to cut costs. In January 2001, the Equal Treatment Commission found that this measure was indirectly discriminatory against women, as two-thirds of newly appointed teachers have been female. The government, faced with a major bill for rectifying the situation, is not convinced of the violation and has sought legal advice.

In January 2001, the Equal Treatment Commission (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling, CGB) decided that a group of female teachers in the secondary education sector unjustly receive unequal pay. The group in question comprises 13,000 teachers who were appointed after 1985, when the government and education trade unions reached an agreement on spending cuts in education. Although teachers who were already employed at the time were not affected, it was agreed that newly recruited staff would receive a substantially lower salary. One of these teachers referred the matter to the CGB, which deemed that her complaint was justified. Despite the fact that the lower pay rates concerned all newly appointed teachers, women comprise two-thirds of this group, and the Commission thus views this measure as indirect sex discrimination

The Equal Treatment Commission is an independent organisation, established by the government to oversee the implementation of the 1994 Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB). Individuals may refer complaints to the CGB about unequal treatment on a number of grounds. In its decisions on such cases, the Commission specifies whether the law has been violated and discrimination has occurred. Decisions are not legally binding, but are usually accepted and implemented.

Since the 1985 agreement was reached between the government and education trade unions, the government believes that it cannot be held accountable for the discrimination. After all, all parties to the deal agreed that new recruits would bear the burden of cost-cutting measures as part of the transitional legislation on "education salaries restructuring" (Herstructurering Onderwijssalarissen, HOS). The education unions are likewise unhappy with the CGB's ruling, having agreed to the provision at the time without knowing that it would have such a heavily gender-specific effect.

The CGB found that the outcome of the 1985 agreement constitutes a grave violation of the ban on discrimination established in the Equal Treatment Act (and EU law), and that the case law of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) and the European Court of Justice clearly states that transitional legislation may not have such an effect. Cost-cutting measures are subordinate to legislation on equal treatment, and their provisions may not be indirectly discriminatory. The women (and men) concerned will suffer the consequences of the agreements reached within the framework of the HOS up until and even during retirement.

Employer and employee representatives alike have attacked the CGB's decision. The government would have to pay more than than NLG 1 billion in order to remedy the situation, in its role as the employer of the teachers concerned. In response to initial criticisms, the CBG has announced plans to take the matter to court, while the government has sought counsel from the state advocate.