Location can affect an equal-pay analysis, but workers do not automatically cease to be comparable because they work at different sites, cities or establishments. Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 provides that comparator analysis is not limited to workers employed by the same employer where a single source establishes the relevant pay conditions. Recital 29 explains that this can include centrally determined pay conditions or agreements applying across employers. At the same time, genuine geographic differences in labour markets, cost structures or working conditions may sometimes contribute to an objective, gender-neutral explanation for a pay difference. Employers should therefore separate the question of comparability from the separate question of whether a location-based pay difference is objectively justified.
Jurisdiction: European Union
Different Locations Do Not Automatically Block Comparison
Two workers can perform equal work or work of equal value even if they work in different establishments. The core assessment remains the substance and value of the work. Employers should therefore avoid treating office, plant, branch or city boundaries as automatic comparator boundaries unless the legal and factual circumstances genuinely support that conclusion.
Article 19 Introduces the Single-Source Test
Article 19 states that comparison is not limited to workers employed by the same employer where a single source establishes the relevant pay conditions. Recital 29 explains that this can arise where pay conditions are set by law, by agreements applicable to several employers or centrally across multiple organisations within a group. This is important for multi-site and group structures because the source of pay-setting can matter more than the physical workplace.
Location May Still Be an Objective Pay Factor
A location-based difference can sometimes be legitimate if it reflects an objective and gender-neutral factor such as a documented market differential, hardship allowance, local responsibility, travel burden or materially different working conditions. The existence of a geographic policy does not prove the difference is justified. Employers should be able to explain the reason for the differential, its evidence base and whether it is applied consistently across women and men.
Remote and Hybrid Work Can Complicate Geographic Policies
Hybrid and remote arrangements can expose weaknesses in older geographic pay frameworks. An employee may be assigned to one office while working predominantly elsewhere, or several workers may perform equivalent roles for the same central team from different locations. Employers should define clearly which location factor drives pay and why. A rule that changes from case to case without documented criteria can make an equal-pay explanation harder to defend.
Separate Comparator Scope From Pay Justification
A common analytical mistake is to argue that two workers cannot be compared simply because their pay differs by location. These are separate questions. First ask whether the work is equal or of equal value and whether the workers fall within a legally valid comparison framework. Then ask whether any pay difference is objectively justified. Keeping the questions separate produces clearer and more defensible analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can employees in different offices be compared for equal pay?
Yes, potentially. Different locations do not automatically prevent comparison where the work and legal comparator framework support it.
Can location justify different pay?
Sometimes, but the employer should show an objective, gender-neutral reason and apply the location rule consistently.
Can workers at different employers ever be compared?
Article 19 allows this where a single source establishes the relevant pay conditions.
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.