Yes, relevant experience can be used to determine where an applicant falls within a salary range if the employer treats experience as an objective, gender-neutral criterion that is genuinely relevant to the role. But 'salary depends on experience' should not be used as a substitute for the Article 5 requirement to provide the initial pay or its range. Employers should disclose the pay framework and explain internally how experience affects placement within it. They must also keep experience separate from salary history: Article 5 prohibits asking applicants what they were paid in current or previous employment relationships.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Experience Can Be an Objective Pay-Setting Factor
The Directive does not prohibit employers from recognising differences in relevant experience. Article 5 requires the initial pay or range to be based on objective and gender-neutral criteria, and Article 6 requires pay-setting criteria to be objective and gender-neutral. Relevant experience can fit within that framework where it genuinely affects the person's ability to perform the role. The employer should define the type and depth of experience that matters rather than relying on a vague impression of seniority or negotiating strength.
"Depends on Experience" Is Not a Substitute for a Pay Range
A vacancy that says only 'salary depends on experience' does not provide the initial pay or range that Article 5 requires applicants to receive. Experience can explain movement within a disclosed range, but it should not be used to avoid giving applicants meaningful pay information. Employers can state that placement within the range depends on relevant experience, skills or other objective factors while still publishing or otherwise providing the actual starting-pay framework at the required stage. This gives candidates both transparency and a clear explanation of why individual offers may differ.
Define What Relevant Experience Actually Means
Not all years of experience should automatically carry the same value. Employers should identify which experience is relevant to the position, such as work with particular systems, regulated responsibilities, specialised technical skills, leadership scope or comparable decision-making complexity. The criteria should be linked to the role and capable of being applied consistently. A rule that simply rewards the longest career history can reproduce unrelated labour-market inequalities. A more defensible approach evaluates the quality and relevance of experience rather than treating time served as the only measure.
Experience Is Different From Salary History
Article 5(2) states that an employer must not ask applicants about their pay history during current or previous employment relationships. That restriction does not prevent the employer from asking about job-related experience, responsibilities, skills or qualifications. Recruitment teams should keep those questions separate. Asking what a candidate managed, built or learned can help assess relevant experience. Asking what the candidate earned in the previous job is a salary-history question and should not be used to determine the new starting salary.
Create a Consistent Placement Method Within the Range
Employers should document how experience affects starting-pay placement. For example, the organisation might identify baseline experience for the role, additional relevant capabilities that justify movement upward and an approval process for offers near the top of the range. The Directive does not prescribe that exact model, but a structured approach makes objective criteria easier to demonstrate. It also reduces the risk that two applicants with comparable experience receive materially different offers because one negotiated more aggressively or encountered a different hiring manager.
Experience Should Not Override Work-of-Equal-Value Principles
A legitimate experience criterion can justify some pay differences, but employers should still consider the wider equal-pay framework. If experience is used as a reason for different starting pay, the employer should be able to show that the difference is relevant, objective and applied consistently. An experience label should not become a permanent explanation for a pay gap after the factor has ceased to matter. Periodic review of pay progression can help identify whether initial differences remain justified or whether they have turned into unexplained disparities.
National Rules Can Be More Prescriptive
Member States can introduce more favourable or more specific transparency rules when implementing Directive (EU) 2023/970. A national law may require the salary range to appear in the vacancy, limit the way experience-based wording is used or impose additional documentation duties. Employers should therefore treat the EU-level principle as the minimum. A group-wide policy can permit relevant experience as an objective factor while local instructions determine how the range and placement criteria must be communicated in each jurisdiction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can relevant experience justify different starting salaries?
Yes, where the experience is genuinely relevant to the role and is used as an objective gender-neutral criterion applied consistently.
Can a job ad say only 'salary depends on experience'?
That wording alone should not replace the Article 5 requirement to provide the initial pay or its range at the required stage of recruitment.
Can an employer ask what a candidate earned in a previous role?
No. Article 5(2) prohibits employers from asking applicants about pay history during current or previous employment relationships.
Related Guides
Official Sources
Requirements and practices differ by jurisdiction and organisation. Check current local law, official guidance and professional advice for a specific situation.