Protection Against Retaliation

Article 25 Protects the Use of Equal-Pay Rights

The Directive would be difficult to enforce if workers risked losing their jobs or suffering other disadvantages whenever they asked for information or challenged pay. Article 25 therefore requires protection against less favourable treatment connected with exercising equal-pay rights. The provision covers workers and workers' representatives and also protects those who support another person. Employers should treat this as a separate compliance duty rather than assuming that a lawful underlying pay decision removes retaliation risk.

Protection Covers Internal Complaints

Article 25 expressly refers to an employer reacting to a complaint within the organisation. A worker does not need to have filed a court claim before the protection becomes relevant. Internal HR complaints, formal grievances or other communications invoking equal-pay rights can therefore trigger the need for careful management. Employers should log the complaint, preserve evidence and ensure that managers who make later employment decisions understand the protected context.

Administrative and Court Proceedings Are Also Protected

The Directive also requires protection where a worker participates in an administrative procedure or court proceeding for enforcement of equal-pay rights or obligations. Adverse treatment during or after such proceedings can create a distinct legal problem. Managers should not reduce hours, block promotion, alter duties, exclude the worker or take disciplinary action because the person used an enforcement process. Legitimate decisions remain possible, but the employer should be able to show a genuine reason unrelated to the protected activity.

Retaliation Can Be Broader Than Dismissal

Article 25 names dismissal but also refers more broadly to other adverse treatment. That wording matters because retaliation can occur through actions that do not end employment. Examples can include unjustified negative treatment in scheduling, assignments, performance management, opportunities or workplace access. Whether a specific act is unlawful depends on national implementation and the facts. Employers should train managers to recognise that subtle responses to a pay complaint can create risk even where employment continues.

Timing Can Make Documentation Especially Important

Employment decisions made soon after a complaint can attract scrutiny even where the employer has a legitimate reason. The best protection is contemporaneous evidence showing that the decision is based on consistent criteria and would have occurred regardless of the complaint. Managers should avoid creating new justifications after the fact. HR review can be useful where a proposed disciplinary, performance or restructuring decision affects someone who recently exercised an equal-pay right.

A Non-Retaliation Process Should Be Operational

Employers should combine policy language with practical controls. Complaint systems should flag protected activity where appropriate, HR should review sensitive decisions, managers should receive training and records should show the legitimate basis for actions taken. Access to complaint information should be limited to those who need it. The aim is to protect the worker while allowing normal management to continue on lawful grounds. A documented process also helps demonstrate that the employer took Article 25 obligations seriously.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Guides

• protection against victimisation
• role of worker representatives

Official Sources

• Directive (EU) 2023/970 - Article 25