July 21, 2026
Category:
Pay TransparencyAuthor:
Anna Gliwińska
/
Co-founder of Symmetria Partners,
If the public sector already publishes its pay scales for everyone to see, how can it still have a gender pay gap? Because open grades are not the same as equal pay. Across public sector employment, from recruitment to payroll, women and men can still end up in different places within the same pay structure. So where does that gap really sit, and what does the EU Pay Transparency Directive require public employers to do about it?
Yes. Article 2 expressly covers employers in both the public and private sectors. It applies to workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship, as defined by the applicable national law, collective agreements or practice, taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Its pre-employment transparency provisions also apply to job applicants.
Most of the core transparency requirements are not dependent on employer size. Applicants must receive information about the initial pay or pay range before the interview or otherwise in time for an informed and transparent negotiation. Employers must not ask applicants about their pay history. Workers also have the right to request information about their individual pay level and the average pay levels, broken down by sex, for categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value.
The Directive itself establishes the minimum reporting thresholds and timetable. Employers with at least 250 workers must report annually from 7 June 2027. Employers with between 150 and 249 workers must report every three years from 7 June 2027, while employers with between 100 and 149 workers must report every three years from 7 June 2031. Member States may introduce earlier reporting, lower thresholds or more favourable rules for workers.
Public bodies that meet these thresholds will be subject to the reporting requirements. Where the reporting identifies a difference in average pay of at least 5% within a category of workers, a joint pay assessment is required only if the difference cannot be justified by objective, gender-neutral factors and has not been remedied within six months of the reporting.
The starting point is therefore simple: being a public-sector employer is not an exemption. However, the legal position of public bodies may differ from that of private employers where a Member State has failed to transpose the Directive fully or on time.
Under EU law, directives generally cannot, by themselves, impose obligations on private parties in disputes between private parties. However, once the transposition deadline has passed, provisions of a directive that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional may potentially be relied on directly against the state and bodies treated as emanations of the state.
This does not mean that private employers are free from equal pay obligations while waiting for national legislation. The principle of equal pay for women and men for equal work or work of equal value, established by Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can itself be invoked in disputes involving private employers. Existing national equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation also continues to apply.
The difference is that some public institutions may face an additional layer of legal risk. A worker may potentially seek to rely directly on certain provisions of the Directive where national transposition is late or incomplete. This does not mean that the entire Directive automatically has direct effect against every public employer. It requires an assessment of both the specific provision concerned and the legal status of the institution.
A provision of a directive may have vertical direct effect after the transposition deadline where it is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. It may then be relied on against the state or a body that qualifies as an emanation of the state.
Local authorities and other bodies forming part of the public administration will normally fall within this framework. The position of universities, hospitals, agencies and other publicly connected organisations may depend on their legal status, public functions, powers and the degree of control exercised by the state. Their status should therefore be assessed rather than assumed.
It is also necessary to examine the particular provision being relied on. Not every requirement of the EU Pay Transparency Directive necessarily satisfies the conditions for direct effect, and there is not yet a definitive ruling from the Court of Justice determining which individual provisions of Directive 2023/970 meet that test.
The practical conclusion is not that public institutions are automatically liable under every provision of the Directive. It is that they should not assume that delayed national implementation removes all legal risk. Updating pay structures, reviewing how roles are valued and documenting how pay decisions are made can materially reduce that risk, although these preparations do not by themselves guarantee compliance.
The public sector often starts from a position that many private employers would envy. For many regulated employees, pay structures are formal, pay levels sit within published grades and scales, and the principle of equal pay for equal work is built into the system.
However, the extent of this protection varies between organisations and countries. Some roles may follow regulated scales, while others, including certain senior management, specialist and individually contracted positions, may sit partly or entirely outside them. The criteria used to determine pay for those roles can be less visible.
An overall gender pay gap in a public body can therefore appear relatively small because much of the workforce is covered by transparent pay scales, while more significant differences may exist in particular occupational groups, grades or pay components.
Even within a pay scale, the gap rarely sits in the base grade, where two people on the same point receive the same hourly pay. It may instead appear in:
As a result, the average pay levels of women and men can diverge even when no individual pay decision appears obviously unfair.
The Directive requires employers to have pay structures that allow workers performing the same work or work of equal value to be compared using objective, gender-neutral criteria. These criteria must include skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Other factors relevant to a particular job or position may also be used.
The Directive does not expressly require every employer to rewrite every job description or introduce a particular point-factor job evaluation method. It also does not require every role to be placed within a single pay scale. However, accurate job descriptions and a structured, gender-neutral approach to job evaluation are often the most reliable practical foundations for demonstrating compliance.
Public-sector employers should therefore consider the following practical sequence:
A gender pay gap analysis becomes much more useful when it is supported by a defensible categorisation of work of equal value. Employers can then examine differences within grades, across categories of workers and in pay elements sitting outside regulated scales.
Article 9 does not require employers to calculate a regression-adjusted gender pay gap. The required indicators include the overall gender pay gap, median gaps, gaps in complementary or variable components, pay quartiles and differences within categories of workers. Adjusted analysis can nevertheless be a valuable additional tool for understanding whether factors such as tenure, location, performance or responsibility explain observed differences.
PayGap supports the production of the mandatory Article 9 indicators and category-level analysis. It can also provide additional analytical insights, including adjusted pay gap analysis, where employers want to understand the factors contributing to observed differences.
If the reporting identifies a difference in average pay of at least 5% between women and men in any category of workers, the employer must first determine whether the difference can be justified by objective, gender-neutral factors. A joint pay assessment is required where the difference cannot be justified and has not been remedied within six months of the reporting.
The assessment must be conducted in cooperation with workers’ representatives. In a public-sector organisation, this may involve trade unions where they act as the relevant workers’ representatives under national law or practice.
This does not mean forcing every role into a single grade or paying an administrator the same as a teacher or clinician.
The Directive does not require one pay structure for the entire organisation. Regulated occupational groups can retain their own scales. What it requires is that the value of work can be assessed using objective, gender-neutral criteria.
Those criteria should be applied consistently, but they do not have to operate mechanically or carry identical weight for every role. The Directive allows employers to consider additional factors that are relevant to a specific job or position, provided that they are applied objectively and do not directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of sex.
A municipality may need to compare administrators and technicians, a school may need to compare teachers and support staff, and a hospital may need to compare nurses and specialist roles.
The objective is not to erase legitimate differences. It is to:
The risk addressed by the Directive is subtler than simply comparing one profession with another. It is the risk that a role predominantly held by women is valued and paid less than another role of genuinely equal value. A consistent job evaluation approach helps bring such differences to the surface.
Map your workforce and pay data. Identify which roles sit within regulated scales, which are paid individually, where allowances and variable pay components appear, and what your current figures show.
Review your job descriptions and role architecture. Although the Directive does not expressly require every employer to rewrite every job description, accurate and up-to-date information about the actual responsibilities and requirements of each role makes it much easier to identify work of equal value and justify pay decisions.
Assess roles using objective, gender-neutral criteria and determine which workers perform the same work or work of equal value. Article 4 identifies four mandatory areas that must be reflected in those criteria:
Other factors relevant to a particular job or position may also be included. All criteria must be applied objectively and without direct or indirect sex discrimination. Relevant soft skills must not be undervalued simply because they are commonly associated with roles predominantly held by women.
The Directive does not prescribe a particular job evaluation methodology. Employers may use an existing analytical method, develop their own approach or rely on structures agreed through collective bargaining, provided that the resulting assessment is objective, gender-neutral and capable of identifying work of equal value.
Employers covered by the Article 9 thresholds must calculate the gender pay gap indicators required by the Directive, including differences within categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value.
Where the reporting identifies a difference in average pay of at least 5% within a category, a joint pay assessment is required only where the difference cannot be justified by objective, gender-neutral factors and has not been remedied within six months of the reporting.
Producing the Article 9 indicators, managing individual information requests and generating the information required by the Directive is where PayGap, the pay transparency platform we partner with, does the heavy lifting.
Steps two and three are often where public bodies require the most support. This is the work Symmetria Partners performs with public-sector employers: reviewing and describing very different roles, supporting gender-neutral job evaluation, building robust pay structures and guiding discussions with workers’ representatives.
You can see how this works in a recent public-institution project.
The complete implementation process is also explained in our step-by-step guide to the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
For the calculation itself, see our guide on how to calculate the gender pay gap [add link].
PayGap supports reporting, individual information requests and the ongoing monitoring of national requirements. Given the additional legal uncertainty that public bodies may face where national transposition is late or incomplete, preparations should not be postponed until all national rules have been finalised.
The consequences may be legal, financial and reputational.
National legislation determines the specific penalties, which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and must include fines. Workers who have suffered pay discrimination are entitled to claim full compensation, including back pay and related bonuses or payments in kind.
The Directive also strengthens the rules on the burden of proof. Where facts are established from which discrimination may be presumed, it is generally for the employer to prove that there was no discrimination. Where an employer has failed to implement specified pay transparency obligations, Member States must generally ensure that the employer proves that no direct or indirect pay discrimination occurred. National law may provide a limited exception where the infringement was manifestly unintentional and minor.
For a public body, the reputational cost of a visible gender pay gap or pay discrimination claim may be particularly significant.
The Directive significantly restricts pay secrecy. Workers cannot be prevented from disclosing their own pay for the purpose of enforcing the principle of equal pay. Member States must also prohibit contractual terms that restrict workers from disclosing information about their pay for that purpose.
This does not create an unrestricted right to disclose other workers’ personal pay information or remove applicable data protection requirements.
Workers also gain the right to request information about their individual pay level and the average pay levels, broken down by sex, for categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value.
Much of public-sector pay already sits within published scales, but these rights extend transparency to roles and pay components that may not currently be visible.
Yes. The Article 9 reporting obligations depend on employer size, but most other transparency requirements do not. These include providing applicants with information about initial pay or the pay range before the interview or otherwise in time for an informed negotiation, not asking candidates about their pay history and responding to workers’ requests for pay information.
The pay information does not always have to appear in the job advertisement. The Directive allows it to be provided in the vacancy notice, before the interview or in another appropriate way.
Member States may exempt employers with fewer than 50 workers from the obligation to make the criteria governing pay progression easily accessible. This possible exemption does not remove the general obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.
A small school or municipality is therefore not generally exempt from the Directive. It may simply have fewer reporting and documentation obligations.
By addressing the causes rather than focusing only on the headline figure.
This means:
Correcting unjustified pay disparities also reduces the risk of pay discrimination claims.
