This study seeks to explain the observed differences in the earnings of individual Canadians by sex. The study uses data from the micro data file of the 1986 Survey of Consumer Finances of individuals age 15 and over, with and without income. To a large extent, the study follows the examples presented in other Canadian studies conducted by Holmes (1974), Robb (1978), Gunderson (1980), Goyder (1981) and Ornstein (1983). Employment earnings account for an overwhelming proportion of the total income received by individuals. Thus, the examination of the earnings differential attempts to address the root causes of many of the problems faced by nontraditional families. Canadian society is no longer largely composed of the traditional family with a working father and the homemaking mother. The growing number of dual-earner couples, single and childless adults, and households headed by women presents a difficult challenge for social policy. The male-female earnings disparity is a key component in exacerbating problems that include the availability of credit for women, the feminization of poverty, access to affordable and adequate housing, and adequate incomes for retirement. To effectively address the problems that have resulted from the interaction of greater female participation in the labour force and the formation of alternate household types, planners and policy makers need to address the root problem of sexual inequality in the labour force, and not solely the symptoms. In the context of changing family structure and the economic position of women, the focus of this study is to identify the size of the male-female earnings gap, and to determine the extent to which the earnings gap can be explained by personal, work and productivity-related characteristics. The impact of these factors are analyzed from two points of view. First, the impact of individual factors on the level of earnings are analyzed through a simple comparison of mean earnings of men and women across a variety of characteristics. Second, the influence of these factors on earnings, and the degree of inequality between the earnings of men and women, is analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis. Regression analysis is used to estimate separate earnings equations for men and women. From the separate earnings equations, the wage gap can be partitioned into three parts, due to differences in (1) constant terms, (2) mean levels of the independent variables, and (3) the returns of the independent variables. Further, to assess the impact of occupational and industrial segregation on the earnings gap, a second set of earnings equations are calculated that do not include measures of occupational and industrial segregation. The calculations of separate earnings equations for men and women, for the selected sample, produced an unadjusted earnings ratio of 0.66. After adjustments were made for the ten productivity and productivity-related factors considered in the analysis, including occupational and industrial distributions, the ratio increased to 0.79. This left an earnings gap of $5,985 (1985 dollars) that could not be assigned to any of the measured variables. While part of the unexplained residual may be explained by variables not included in the analysis, or by more careful measurement of existing variables, it seems likely that at least 20 percentage points of the earnings gap is attributable to "an amalgam of different forms of discrimination which, taken together, disadvantage women relative to men", (Denton and Hunter, 1982). Discrimination is defined as different returns in earnings for equal productivity characteristics, as given by the regression coefficients. Of the total earnings gap of 34 percent, approximately 60% of this is attributable to wage discrimination, and approximately 40% is due to differences in productivity-related characteristics Occupational and industrial segregation account for a large proportion of the earnings gap. The adjusted earnings ratio, when occupational and industrial segregation are not considered endowments, is 0.69. Thus, the difference between the full-regression equation and the partial regression equation indicates that occupational and industrial segregation accounts for approximately 30% of the earnings gap. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

The consolidation of 22 years of democracy and 20 years of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa entrenched the need to eradicate social and economic inequalities, particularly those that stem from our history of colonialism, apartheid and patriarchy, which brought pain and suffering to the great majority of our people, in particular Black people. Therefore, the passing of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Constitution)1 20 years ago, marked a turning point in our history by giving expression firstly, to the Freedom Charter and secondly, by upholding the values of human dignity, equality, freedom and social justice in a united, non-racial and nonsexist society where every South African may flourish. However, despite the fact that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution provides that everyone is equal before the law and that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedom, discriminatory practices, in particular, pay inequalities, are still rife in our country. It is against this backdrop that the historical background of the employment discrimination law in South Africa, which over a period of time, contributed significantly to the high levels of inequalities in pay experienced by the previously disadvantaged groups, such as Black people, women and people with disabilities becomes critical. This aspect points to the importance of understanding the context within which the principle of “Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value” has been and should be implemented in South Africa compared to Canada. Therefore, drawing from the review of the legislation and the implementation processes of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, the following best practices/ lessons learned were identified: 108 of 1996. The Canadian Ontario Pay Equity Act states that the value of job classes be based on factors such as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. This Act also requires the employer to take proactive steps to institute a jobevaluation scheme, and the participation of the social partners and the affected workers is crucial. It is submitted that there are similarities in these requirements with those contained in the Employment Equity Regulations, 2014, which implies that the South African legislative framework draws on this best practice. The Ontario Employment Standards Act allows the comparison to be drawn with the establishment of the same employer in the same municipality, as well as with establishments to which a worker can be transferred. In this regard, it is observed that the new provisions on equal pay in section 6(4) of the Employment Equity Amendment Act, 2013, limits only the comparison with the employees of the “same employer” without elaborating further into the same municipality or with establishments to which a worker can be transferred. Under Ontario Pay Equity Act, even if there is no precise comparator in the establishment doing work of equal value, the employer must ensure that the worker’s pay is proportionate to others doing work of proportionate value. In the context of South African legislation, a comparison on the basis of proportionate value is not catered for. The meaning of “work of equal value” refers to the work that is the same (identical or interchangeable), substantially the same (sufficiently similar), or of equal value (accorded the same value) when compared to an appropriate comparator. In justifying equal pay, the Ontario statute provides that formal seniority systems and performance-related pay can justify unequal pay only if they do not discriminate on the grounds of gender. This is similar to the South African statute, in particular, regulation 7 of the Employment Equity Regulations, 2014, which include seniority and performance as some of the factors that may justify unequal pay only if they do not unfairly discriminate on one or combination of the listed grounds, and on any other arbitrary ground as prescribed by section 6(1) of the EEA as amended. As per the Ontario legislation, the employer cannot reduce the rate of remuneration in order to comply with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Similarly, in the South African legislation, in particular, regulation 7 of the Employment Equity Regulations, 2014, it prevents levelling down of pay in instances of demotions and in transfer of contracts (section 197 of the LRA). There is a requirement in terms of the Ontario Pay Equity Act, that employers must establish and maintain pay equity in their establishment in consultation with the bargaining agent (trade unions); and after the agreement, post a Pay Equity Plan in its workplace. In terms of South African legislation, the EEA does not have a requirement for a Pay Equity Plan, however, designated employers (those required to comply with Chapter III of the EEA) are required in terms of sections 19(1) and 20 of the EEA to conduct a review of their workplace policies, practices and procedures, inclusive of remuneration and benefits; and develop and implement affirmative-action measures to address any unfair discrimination practices by including these measures in their Employment Equity Plans. Furthermore, in terms of section 27 of the EEA, designated employers are then required to submit their annual Income Differential Statements to the Employment Conditions Commission (ECC) on the remuneration and benefits received in each occupational level of that employer’s workforce. In relation to dealing with pay-equity disputes, the Ontario Pay Equity Act, establishes a Pay Equity Commission, which consists of a Pay Equity Office, inclusive of Review Officers and the Hearings Tribunal that are mandated to specifically enforce the equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value principle. Contrary, in South Africa, the legislation does not cater for the establishment of a Pay Equity Commission with exclusive mandate to deal with pay-equity cases. In this regard, the various courts and the CCMA which are mandated to deal with equal-pay disputes are also mandated to deal with other labour disputes emanating from other labour legislation, e.g. the LRA, BCEA, EEA, UIA, OHSA, COIDA, etc. The Review Officers in the Pay Equity Office in Ontario are mandated to monitor the implementation and maintenance of the Pay Equity Plans as per section 34 of the Pay Equity Act in Ontario. In South Africa, the EEA makes provision for DG Review process in terms of section 43, where the DG of Labour can subject any organization for a review to assess its compliance with the requirements of the EEA as whole, and not specifically to assess the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Notably, assessment of income differentials to promote equal pay may form part of the DG review process. In light of the above best practices / lessons learned, the following recommendations are made to inform the improvement plans of the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the South African labour market: Conducting of continuous advocacy campaigns to raise awareness and educate all stakeholders, i.e. employers, employees and trade unions on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Development of further policy guidelines in relation to equal pay consultations within the workplace between the employer and the employees, including where applicable registered trade unions. A policy directive on the “equal-pay consultation” will promote not only transparency around pay and benefit structures, but will encourage proactive measures from employers to develop pay/remuneration policies, including establishing remuneration committees; conducting job evaluations; implementing job-grading systems and performance-evaluation systems to promote the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. 2 SS 115(4) and 158(1)(j) of 66 of 1995. Minimum wage-setting bodies should have the duty to apply the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the setting of minimum wages. Collective bargaining structures such as bargaining councils should have a duty to apply and enforce the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the wage-negotiation process and conclusion of collective agreements. Given the importance of collective bargaining in wage-setting in South Africa, there should be a duty on the social partners to include the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in all collective agreements. Industry-wide comparisons should be utilized, particularly in sectors in which collective bargaining operates at a sectoral level. Alternatively, the “Proxy” method as developed in Ontario, should be considered. Proportionate pay, as developed in Ontario, should be considered in cases where there is no comparator doing work of equal value, employed by the same employer. Possible legislative amendments to section 27 of the EEA to include a new provision, requiring employers to develop and implement a Pay Equity Plan outlining how they intend complying with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Then an annual progress report must be submitted to the Director General of Labour on how the Pay Equity Plan has been implemented instead of the current submission of an Income Differential Statement to the ECC. Finally, compliance with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is required as a condition for accessing State Contracts under section 53 of the EEA when this section is promulgated in the near future. It can be deduced from the review process that the principle of equal pay for work of equal is a complex and specialized area. However, it was also clear that in both South Africa and Canada, the issue of equal pay is seen, not only as a workplace issue, but as an important Constitutional fundamental human-right imperative to the achievement of equality in a society as a whole.