Experience can affect where an employee sits within a pay band when the experience is relevant to the work and the employer uses it through objective, gender-neutral criteria. A new entrant may reasonably start lower in a range while a worker with directly relevant expertise may be placed higher, but years of experience should not operate as an unexplained proxy for value. Employers should define what experience counts, how much weight it carries, how prior experience is verified and how it interacts with skills, performance and responsibility. Directive (EU) 2023/970 does not prescribe a years-of-experience formula. It requires pay structures and pay-setting criteria that support equal pay and can be applied objectively.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Experience Can Be a Legitimate Pay-Setting Factor
Employees performing the same role can enter with different levels of directly relevant experience. An employer may decide that someone who already demonstrates the knowledge, judgment or technical capability expected at a higher proficiency level should be placed further into the salary range than a new entrant. The important point is that the factor should relate to the work. Total years in employment, age or a prestigious previous employer are not automatically evidence that a person will contribute greater value in the current role. A defensible policy defines the types of experience that matter and connects them to job requirements.
Relevant Experience Is More Useful Than Raw Years
A simple years-of-experience rule can look objective while still producing weak decisions. Five years performing closely related work may be more relevant than ten years in a different field, and career breaks do not necessarily reduce current capability. Employers should therefore identify the knowledge, skills and responsibility gained through prior experience rather than treating time alone as the measure. Where years are used as a proxy, the organisation should test whether they actually predict the level of proficiency required for the role. This makes the criterion easier to explain and reduces the risk of rewarding historical career patterns that may differ systematically between groups.
Hiring Placement Should Use a Consistent Decision Framework
A transparent hiring process can assign approved salary-placement factors before individual offers are negotiated. For example, the employer may consider directly relevant experience, demonstrated skills, required certifications, scarce expertise and internal equity. Recruiters and managers should know how each factor affects the permitted range and when compensation approval is required. The process should also compare proposed offers with existing workers in the same or comparable roles. If two candidates with similar relevant experience receive very different offers because one negotiated more aggressively, the formal salary band has not eliminated discretionary risk.
Experience and Pay Progression Are Related but Not Identical
Prior experience affects where an employee may enter a range, while pay progression concerns how salary develops after employment begins. As workers gain role-specific skills, assume additional responsibility or deliver sustained performance, those factors may justify further progression if the employer's policy recognises them. Experience therefore should not become an automatic annual entitlement unless the pay system is deliberately designed around seniority or a collective agreement. Employers should distinguish time served from demonstrated development so workers understand what they need to do to move through the range.
Articles 4 and 6 Require Objective and Gender-Neutral Criteria
Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 requires pay structures that enable assessment of work value on objective and gender-neutral criteria, including skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Article 6 requires the criteria used to determine pay, pay levels and pay progression to be accessible to workers and objective and gender neutral. Experience can fit within that framework where it is genuinely relevant to the job, but the Directive does not state that more years must always produce higher pay. Employers should therefore document the connection between the experience criterion and the work rather than relying on assumptions.
Audit Experience-Based Placement for Consistency
Experience rules should be tested against actual salary decisions. Compensation teams can compare employees with similar relevant backgrounds, review how prior experience was credited at hire and examine whether managers apply the criterion differently across departments. They should also consider whether career breaks, part-time histories or non-traditional career paths are being undervalued without a job-related reason. Where experience explains a pay difference, the evidence should be identifiable. Where it does not, the employer should look for another objective factor or consider whether the difference requires correction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can two employees in the same salary band be paid differently because of experience?
Yes, where relevant experience is an objective, gender-neutral factor and is applied consistently. The employer should be able to explain the difference.
Does more years of experience always justify higher pay?
No. The experience should be relevant to the role and connected to the employer's documented pay criteria.
Does the Directive prescribe an experience formula?
No. It requires objective gender-neutral pay-setting and progression criteria, but it does not specify how many years correspond to a particular salary position.
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.