Gender equality lacking in collective agreements

In July 2008, the Women’s Bureau of the Pancyprian Federation of Labour completed a study on equality between women and men in collective agreements in Cyprus. The study reveals that the content of the country’s collective agreements in terms of equality appears to be particularly inadequate compared with other EU countries. This results in a shortage of regulations even regarding aspects of equality that are laid down in law; however, some examples of good practice exist.

In July 2008, in the context of the monitoring and control mechanism for the implementation of the legislation on equality by means of collective agreements, the Women’s Bureau of the Pancyprian Federation of Labour (Παγκύπρια Εργατική Ομοσπονδία, PΕΟ), set up by PEO in September 2004, completed a study entitled Equality between women and men in collective labour agreements. The results of the study were officially presented on 3 November 2008.

About the study

The main objective of the study was to investigate and analyse the content of collective agreements, so as to identify and record those regulations that either promote equal treatment in collective bargaining or hamper it. With regard to those agreements that hamper equality, the study focuses equally on direct and indirect discrimination, since, due also to the reinforcement of the legislative framework for eliminating discrimination against women, indirect discrimination is usually responsible for maintaining existing gender inequalities. The same distinction also applies to the collective agreements that promote gender equality at work, that is, both those with a direct and those with an indirect effect.

The completion of the study is seen as particularly important for the situation in Cyprus, as this is the first time that the issue of gender equality has been analysed in the context of collective bargaining. Based on the existing system of industrial relations in Cyprus, collective bargaining constitutes the main tool for regulating and setting the terms and conditions of employment. In this context, and given the lack of an effective link between collective bargaining and workplace gender equality, this study represents an innovative initiative in this field. The study’s conclusions and findings may constitute the basis for developing a dialogue between the social partners for the purpose of mapping out policies and creating measures that aim to correct and eliminate workplace inequalities, particularly those affecting women.

Direct discrimination

In Cyprus thus far, the predominant approach to workplace equality between women and men, at least from the government’s perspective, refers first to the legislative and then to the institutional level, mainly through harmonisation of Cypriot legislation with the European acquis communautaire. This practice has been largely transferred by the social partners to the collective bargaining process, primarily on the basis of the implementation of Law 77(I) of 2002 regarding equal pay for women and men for similar work or work of equal value. It should be noted that this law is regarded as being of decisive importance for eliminating direct discrimination, since the most common form of direct discrimination involves setting women’s wages at lower levels than men’s for the same work or work of equal value. Therefore, the fact that direct discrimination still exists today is rather surprising.

More specifically, of all the agreements examined in the study, two were singled out whose provisions appear to blatantly advocate the maintenance of direct discrimination against women, primarily in the form of a wage gap. At sectoral level, in the collective labour agreement for the furniture and carpentry industry a clear distinction remains between the occupational categories of male and female workers, according to which female workers’ pay is set at a lower level than that of their male counterparts. Such a distinction was also apparent for the company-level collective agreement at the Potato and Carrot and Beetroot Marketing Boards; however, this agreement no longer applies, due to the disbanding of the Cyprus Carrot and Beetroot Marketing Board in July 2005.

In the same category of direct discrimination, which clearly hampers equality between the sexes, was the collective agreement at the Louis Cruise Lines company. This company-level agreement expired on 31 December 2007; however, many provisions contained in the agreement appeared to exclude women’s employment completely. For example, Article 14 on working hours, 1(b) and 2(c), contained references to ‘the men of the watches’ and ‘the men not on duty’. Another indication of the exclusion of women from employment was the absence of any provisions regarding maternity protection.

Indirect discrimination

In terms of indirect discrimination, the study focuses on issues relating to job segregation, given the role played by this factor in workplace gender inequality issues, particularly in maintaining the wage gap.

In this context, in many of the collective labour agreements examined, women’s labour market participation is generally restricted to unskilled, low qualified or the lowest paid jobs. With regard to the definition of occupations, apart from substantive discrimination, a verbal inequality has also been observed in relation to the language used. More specifically, in some collective agreements at sectoral and company level, numerous occupations are defined as typically female roles – for example, cleaning lady, chambermaid, (female) telephonist and (female) secretary. Such wording thus implies that these jobs are either held by or intended only for women.

In another set of collective agreements, job segregation is not immediately noticeable, and occupations and professions are described in neutral terms, such as staff, or in the male gender, which in the Greek language implies both sexes. In this way, the agreements appear to comply formally with the legislation and to generally be in line with the most up-to-date views on equality, but it is doubtful whether this has been done with the conscious intent of the parties to those agreements. In the same context, since many agreements contain no specific provisions or formulations to the contrary, it is impossible to adequately establish reasonable doubt that discrimination against working women has been effectively abolished, at least with regard to the division of occupations into men’s and women’s categories.

Another characteristic of almost all of the agreements examined is the absence of regulations even for aspects of equality that are laid down in law, such as parental leave, sexual [harassment in the workplace](/search/node/areas OR industrialrelations OR dictionary OR definitions OR harassmentintheworkplace?oldIndex) and affirmative action. In this regard, the only relevant provision included in almost all collective agreements relates to maternity protection.

Examples of good practice

In general, despite the rather inadequate content of the collective labour agreements with regard to equality between women and men at work, a small number of agreements have taken a new approach to workplace equality. Following this approach involves either establishing new provisions, declarations of commitment and policy statements, or introducing special provisions on various issues, the main example being equal pay. This development is especially encouraging, not only in terms of promoting equality in the specific enterprises and sectors of economic activity, but also concerning the contribution of such examples to the creation of a new culture of gender equality at work.

It is also worth noting the sectoral agreement in the banking sector, where all discriminatory provisions against women were abolished long before the introduction of more harmonising legislation. Particularly innovative for the promotion of equal pay was the collective labour agreement for 1985–1986. In particular, this agreement provides for an additional pay increase, over and above the normal pay rise, for female bank employees, to be paid on an annual basis until the pay levels between both sexes are balanced out. The main objective in this case is to achieve equality of pay before the women concerned retire. However, compared with other sectors of economic activity in Cyprus, in the banking sector, a collective bargaining agenda has been clearly promoted over the last number of years, which has particularly affected gender equality issues.

Commentary

Efforts to date to bring collective agreements into compliance with the principle of equality appear to be focused on or solely limited to verbal corrections, or to the formal abolition of directly discriminatory provisions and clauses. Such moves are merely to present an appearance of compliance with equality legislation, instead of effectively promoting and applying the principle of workplace gender equality. In the best of circumstances, however, collective agreements follow a legalistic and rather superficial approach and tactic, which reflect the more general approach adopted in Cyprus, as regards gender equality in the workplace and in employment.

From the extensive examples of both direct and indirect discrimination included in the study, it is clear that many – and extensive – violations of the principle of equality of rights, treatment and opportunities between women and men at work still remain. In the context of extensive occupational segregation and wage inequality at the expense of women, it is apparent that women are not treated as separate individuals but as dependent family members of men who are always assumed to be the head of the household and main breadwinner. Therefore, it is imperative to expand the collective bargaining agenda to eliminate discrimination against women and men at work. Moreover, it is important to promote effective equality between both sexes at work on the basis of practical measures that have been implemented in other EU countries , such as proactive legislation, creation of equality committees and equality audits.

Anthoula Papadopoulou and Eva Soumeli, Cyprus Labour Institute (INEK/PEO)