Directive guide
Remediation and the joint pay assessment — the 5% cascade
In short
1. Justification — the first, cheapest exit
A pay difference for work of equal value is lawful when objective, gender-neutral criteria explain it: seniority, relevant qualifications, documented performance, market premiums applied consistently. Two things disqualify a justification instantly: criteria invented after the fact, and “negotiation” — the candidate who asked for more is not an objective criterion.
Write it down when it happens
The justification that survives is contemporaneous: recorded when the pay decision is made, per person, referencing the criterion. Egalis attaches justifications to flagged outliers at decision time, so the file exists before anyone asks for it.
2. Remediation — the second exit
What cannot be justified must be corrected in cooperation with workers’ representatives, within a reasonable period — and within 6months of the reporting date if the joint assessment is to be avoided. Remediation means raising the disadvantaged group’s pay; the cost of closing each category’s gap is a number worth knowing before the report makes it a deadline — the calculator estimates it.
3. The joint pay assessment — the mandatory audit
When triggered, the assessment is done jointly with workers’ representatives and must contain (Art. 10(2)):
- the proportion of women and men in each category of workers;
- average pay levels and variable components per category, by sex;
- any differences between those levels and their objective justifications, per category;
- the reasons for differences lacking justification;
- measures to address them, with deadlines;
- an assessment of previous measures’ effectiveness.
The results go to workers and their representatives and to the monitoring body — and on request to the labour inspectorate and the equality body. Pay must then actually be corrected within a reasonable time.
4. The playbook that keeps you out of Art. 10
Everything upstream of the trigger is cheap; everything downstream is expensive and public. Monthly per-category monitoring, contemporaneous justifications, and budgeted remediation before the reference year closes — that is the whole game. The cascade with its clocks is exactly what Egalis automates.
Frequently asked questions
Is every gap above 5% illegal?
No. A difference justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria — seniority, qualifications, documented performance — is lawful at any size. The 5% threshold triggers scrutiny, not automatic liability: what is illegal is an unjustified difference for equal work or work of equal value.
Can we remedy by lowering the higher-paid group's pay?
No. Equalisation happens upwards — CJEU case law is long settled that compliance cannot be achieved by levelling down. Budget for raises in the disadvantaged group, not cuts elsewhere.
Who takes part in the joint pay assessment?
The employer and workers' representatives, together. The results go to workers and representatives and to the monitoring body; on request, to the labour inspectorate and the equality body. It is not an internal memo.
How do we avoid ever reaching Art. 10?
Watch metric (g) monthly, justify what is justifiable in writing when it appears (not two years later), and remedy what is not — the 6-month clock only starts biting when a flagged category reaches the report unaddressed.