Mr. David Joyce:

We welcome the opportunity to participate in today’s meeting on gender pay gap reporting. The gender pay gap in Ireland stands at approximately 14% and is linked to a wide range of cultural, legal, social, and economic factors. It is a far more complex issue than the concept of equal pay for equal work and requires us to tackle issues such as cultural conditioning, stereotypes and segregated labour markets; the lack of a quality, affordable early years care system; paid and unpaid parental leave; collective bargaining and salary negotiation systems; and the barriers to women’s progression at all levels of their career. That said, mandatory reporting of gender pay gaps in individual enterprises can make a significant contribution to tackling the gender pay gap and we therefore welcome the publication of the general scheme of the Bill. We note the previous work on this by Senator Bacik and her 2017 Bill and hope that this new Bill will not further delay the introduction of such reporting.

It is clear that a broad consensus on the issue is emerging across political parties, employer bodies, workers’ representatives and civil society organisations. We have engaged with IBEC, the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, and departmental officials with a view to agreeing how best to progress gender pay gap reporting.

We note that the Bill will essentially enable the Minister to make regulations requiring employers to publish information relating to the pay of their employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees and, if so, the scale of such differences. It is significant that the heads of the Bill include the word “publish”, but there is no detail as to how that will happen. There is a central website for that purpose in the UK and such may be established here. In addition to publication on a website or elsewhere, ICTU believes that sharing the information with the workers in the enterprises who are directly affected by this issue and their representatives could lead to useful discussion, further investigation and action. We have, therefore, requested that gender pay gap information be shared with employees and trade unions.

Other issues include the fact that firms with fewer than 250 employees are initially excluded from the provisions of the Bill, although firms with more than 50 employees will eventually be subject to the requirements. That means that approximately 50% of firms will not be obliged to report. As the scheme develops, far from fearing such a measure, some companies may begin to disclose publicly and voluntarily as a signal of their commitment to workplace equality. Indeed, we note the recent launch of the pay disclosure pioneers initiative under which leading businesses will commit to early pay disclosure and advancement towards workplace equality before that is legally required.

It is useful that part-time work is dealt with in the Bill, given the predominance of women working in that way, as is bonus pay. ICTU has discussed the desirability of including a list of occupational categories as the best way to proceed in regard to part-time work. We have discussed with IBEC a proposed list of four managerial and four non-managerial categories which could be considered as a workable option. However, it is worth noting that if we were to categorise workers per occupation, we would need to know the share of workers in that occupation. A comprehensive list such as that would be a significant improvement on the UK scheme and would lead to greater granularity in the data to be collected. Similarly, the UK scheme does not ask for information on part-time worker pay gaps.

The inclusion of a narrative with the figures reported is not addressed. One of the lessons from the UK experience is that the narrative section of reports provides context and useful information to help interpret the raw data that companies publish. ICTU has made the point that a narrative may explain what the figures represent and include what actions companies will take to narrow it. It also provides unions and others with the possibility of holding companies to account on their performance in regard to these actions. We have suggested that such a narrative should be compulsory. It is voluntary in the UK system and only approximately one third of employers provide it in their reports.

We note the various enforcement mechanisms proposed in the scheme, including the role of the Circuit Court, equality reviews and the roles of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and Workplace Relations Commission and are happy to discuss these further.

Heads 2(4)(a) and (c) of the Bill, which deal with classes of employer and employee and the treatment of proprietary and non-proprietary directors, as well as those in consultant roles whose only client is the company, will be of importance. Some sectors are organised in terms of partnerships rather than incorporated companies, and we would hope to ensure that such enterprises are included. Head 6(10), regarding the publication of the complainant’s name, seems an extreme measure to disincentivise vexatious complaints. I thank the committee for the opportunity to raise these issues and look forward to the discussion.