As the transposition deadline for the EU’s Pay Transparency Directive (the ‘PTD’) approaches, there remains considerable uncertainty for employers regarding their obligations, particularly in respect of the complex task of assessing work of ‘equal value’.
‘Equal Value’ Assessments Under the PTD
‘Equal value’ assessments are a fundamental component of the PTD. Reporting obligations include a requirement to break down pay gap reports by categories of workers performing the same work or work of ‘equal value’, and workers will have rights to request and receive information about their pay and the average pay levels broken down by sex for workers doing the same work or work of equal value.
Work of ‘equal value’ is to be assessed by reference to objective, gender-neutral criteria. To assist with these assessments, Member States are obliged to ensure analytical tools or methodologies are made available to support employers in conducting these assessments.
At the end of March 2026, the European Institute for Gender Equality (‘EIGE’) published an EU toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation and classification, which provides a step-by-step guide to help employers of all sizes to introduce or review existing gender neutral job evaluation and classification systems. For further information on this toolkit, see our article here.
Notably however, this tool does not guarantee compliance with the PTD, is not legally binding, and does not relieve a Member State of their obligations to make analytical tools and methodolgies available to employers.
While this toolkit may influence the Government’s approach to developing a national toolkit for employers in Ireland, it remains to be seen how this will be implemented in practice.
Equal Pay for ‘Equal Value’ – a Live Issue for Employers
Although it is not expected that the PTD will transposed, nor a national toolkit be implemented in advance of the 7 June 2026 transposition deadline (see our article here), assessment of ‘equal value’ work is nonetheless already a live issue for employers in Ireland.
Even though the PTD introduces new requirements in respect of reporting and transparency obligations, the concept of equal pay for work of ‘equal value’ is not a novel concept but rather has been a longstanding feature of EU and domestic equality law.
In Ireland, the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2021 (the ‘Acts’) provide that men and women are entitled to the same rate of remuneration where they are employed to do ‘like work’, which includes work that is of ‘equal value’. When determining if work is of ‘equal value’, the Acts specify that regard should be had to non-exhaustive criteria including skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibilities, and working conditions.
The Acts do not provide any guidance on how these criteria are to be assessed, and in practice an analysis involves the Workplace Relations Commission or the Labour Court undertaking a detailed and time consuming analysis, which can involve workplace inspections.
‘Equal Value’ Assessments in Practice
The complexities of such assessments were highlighted in the recent case of Cotter v Irving Oil Whitegate Refinery Limited (ADJ-00037909).
In this case, the Complainant submitted a claim of discrimination under the Acts alleging she had not received equal pay to that of a named male comparator. The Complainant was a contract specialist in professional services, which she argued was a role of equal value to that of her colleague who was a contract specialist in construction services.
The hearing of the case took place across multiple days and involved hearing testimony from numerous witnesses, including the Complainant and the named comparator.
The Respondent presented a detailed comparative analysis of both roles over a two-year time frame, arguing that the roles were not equal in value, in particular noting that the roles were at different grades on the salary scale, that the higher grading of the comparator reflected his qualification and professional membership as a quantity surveyor, and that that the value of the contracts for the comparator were significantly higher.
The Adjudication Officer (‘AO’) considered the written and oral evidence of the parties and undertook a detailed analysis of factors such as job titles, entry routes, qualification requirements, value and scale of the commercial contracts. The AO also noted that, although a workplace inspection had been considered, it would not have been determinative, as the comparator had left the role prior to the hearing.
Taking all the above into consideration, the AO determined that the Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as although there were some similarities in terms of location, hours of work, contact with vendors and suppliers, the comparator was engaged in more strategic work and at a more senior level.
Interestingly, this case was initially prompted by publication of the Respondent’s gender pay gap report, published under Ireland’s current gender pay gap reporting regime which identified that female employees were paid less than their male colleagues.
Although we await the transposition of the PTD, this case serves as a timely reminder that equal pay and ‘equal value’ assessments are already a live issue for employers.
