Entgelttransparenzrichtlinie: Arbeit gleichen Wertes

In dieser Folge unseres Arbeitsrecht-Podcasts analysieren Ralf Peschek und Hemma Elsner, wie „Arbeit gleichen Wertes“ definiert werden kann, und geben Beispiele aus der Praxis. Die EU-Entgelttransparenzrichtlinie liefert die zentralen Kriterien anhand derer Jobpositionen bewertet werden können. Arbeitgeber:innen können zusätzliche Kriterien definieren, sofern diese relevant und sachlich gerechtfertigt sind, sowie eine unternehmensspezifische Gewichtung der Kriterien vornehmen. Auf dieser Grundlage können Mitarbeitende gruppiert werden, die gleiche oder gleichwertige Arbeit verrichten.

Pay Transparency Directive: work of equal value

In this episode of our Arbeitsrecht podcast, Ralf Peschek and Hemma Elsner explore how to define “work of equal value” and provide some practical examples. Companies have to evaluate job positions to allow for the comparison of the value of different jobs within the same organisational structure. The EU’s Pay Transparency Directive provides the main criteria, but employers have can develop additional criteria if relevant and justified. They may also determine the weighting of each criterion depending on the type of company. This process allows employers to group employees performing the same work or work of equal value.

Towards fair and sustainable remuneration models

The Pay Transparency Directive not only brings new obligations, but also an opportunity to establish fair and sustainable remuneration models. Employers must have pay structures in place ensuring that there are no gender-based pay differences between workers performing the same work or work of equal value that are not justified on the basis of objective, gender-neutral criteria. To achieve this, employers should evaluate job positions within the company to enable a comparison of the value of different roles within the same organisational structure. Subsequently, groups of employees performing the same work or work of equal value can be formed, ultimately ensuring that all employees are fairly remunerated.

Criteria selection

As a starting point, the Directive sets forth the four main criteria (skills, responsibility, effort and working conditions) and allows other criteria such as educational, professional and training requirements to be taken into account, provided they are non-discriminatory, relevant and justified. A report by the European Commission dating back to 2013 provides additional guidelines on the interpretation of these criteria and specific sub-criteria.

When reviewing or developing job architecture, companies can define additional gender-neutral criteria relevant for their businesses. Applying the same set of criteria ensures that the evaluation is transparent, comprehensible and consistent, while helping to fulfil the Directive’s requirements for comparing jobs within a company.

Existing job architectures must be reviewed for compliance with the Directive to ensure that all criteria are applied in a gender-neutral and non-discriminatory manner.

Weighting and application of the criteria

Each criterion can be awarded certain weights. Weights can be assigned according to the value that the criterion has for the company. Thus, companies can decide which criteria to prioritise, such as skills or working conditions, provided the weighting remains transparent and non-discriminatory.

For example, professional competence and communication skills are highly valued in a law firms, whereas physical strain and working conditions matter more in production.

These individual criteria should be linked back to a scalable, operational value system in a comprehensible and sustainable manner, so that, for the evaluation of individual positions – such as a partner and an HR manager in a law firm – each weighted criterion can be assigned a corresponding score. 

An iterative process

There is no single correct way when it comes to shaping a job architecture. Rather, it is an iterative process that must be adapted to the specific circumstances of the company. Companies should therefore start analysing their structures at an early stage and establish a transparent, comprehensible system for evaluating positions.

For instance, a company may use an inductive approach by beginning with well-defined roles and determining which factors are most relevant to its operations. Alternatively, if a company is constantly growing and the positions are very dynamic and flexible, a deductive approach may be more suitable, considering which factors are relevant from a top-down perspective.

Next steps

Companies must not only develop comprehensible evaluation logic internally, but also be able to present it plausibly to third parties, for example in official reports or in court proceedings.

The evaluation of positions is only the first step. Employers then need to classify specific employees within the pay structures that they have developed in order to identify and explain possible differences in remuneration.