The comparable worker category used under the EU Pay Transparency Directive must consist of workers performing the same work or work of equal value, grouped in a non-arbitrary manner using non-discriminatory and objective gender-neutral criteria. Article 3 links the category directly to the criteria in Article 4. Those criteria include skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions, with other relevant factors permitted where justified. The employer forms the category and, where applicable, does so in cooperation with workers' representatives under national law or practice. A category therefore should not be based only on job title, department, reporting line or location if those labels do not accurately reflect the value of the work.
Jurisdiction: European Union
The Directive Defines a Category of Workers
Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 defines a category of workers as workers performing the same work or work of equal value who are grouped in a non-arbitrary manner using non-discriminatory and objective gender-neutral criteria. The grouping is made by the employer and, where applicable, in cooperation with workers' representatives in accordance with national law or practice. This definition matters because Article 7 uses the category as the boundary for comparative average pay information. The employer cannot simply choose whichever group produces the easiest calculation. The category has to reflect the equal-pay comparison required by the Directive.
Same Work Is the Most Direct Comparison
Where workers perform substantially the same work, the comparison can be relatively straightforward. They may have the same role, perform similar tasks and carry comparable responsibilities. Even then, employers should not rely only on the wording of a job title. Two people with the same title can have materially different scope, while two titles can describe essentially the same work. The category should therefore be grounded in the actual work performed and the criteria used to assess its value. A title can help organise the analysis, but it should not replace it.
Work of Equal Value Can Cross Job Titles and Functions
The Directive also requires comparison of work that is different in content but equal in value. This means a category can include roles with different titles, work processes or organisational functions if an objective assessment shows that the value of the work is comparable. Employers should be careful not to exclude a role merely because it sits in another department or belongs to a different occupational tradition. Work-of-equal-value analysis is important precisely because historic job structures can undervalue roles that are performed predominantly by one sex even when their demands are comparable to differently labelled work.
Skills, Effort, Responsibility and Working Conditions Are Core Criteria
Article 4 requires objective, gender-neutral criteria for assessing whether workers are in a comparable situation with regard to the value of work. The Directive identifies skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions as core factors. Skills can include relevant knowledge, training and capabilities. Effort can include physical, mental or emotional demands. Responsibility can reflect decision-making, accountability, people, resources or risk. Working conditions can capture the environment and circumstances in which work is carried out. The factors should be applied in a way that recognises the actual demands of the role and does not systematically favour characteristics associated with one sex.
Other Relevant Criteria Can Be Used Where They Are Justified
The four core factors are not necessarily the only criteria that can ever matter. The Directive allows other criteria where they are relevant and justified. The important point is that the methodology remains objective, gender-neutral and connected to the value of the work. Employers should document why an additional factor is included, how it is measured and whether it creates unintended bias. A factor should not be introduced simply because it reproduces an existing pay hierarchy. The methodology should assess job value rather than validate historical pay decisions after the fact.
Job Title, Department and Reporting Line Are Not Enough on Their Own
Administrative labels can be useful for finding possible comparators, but they do not by themselves satisfy the Directive's test. A department may contain jobs of very different value, and comparable work may exist across departments. A reporting line can reflect organisation design rather than job value. Location may affect some legitimate pay considerations, but it should not automatically determine whether the work itself is comparable. Employers should therefore treat organisational labels as data points, not as substitutes for an objective assessment of skills, effort, responsibility, working conditions and other justified factors.
The Category Must Be Non-Arbitrary and Defensible
The phrase non-arbitrary is important. An employer should be able to explain why a worker was included in or excluded from the comparison category. Categories should be based on a methodology established before an individual dispute arises, applied consistently and reviewed when roles materially change. If the boundaries move depending on who makes the request, the process becomes difficult to defend. A strong category file can record the job profiles considered, factor assessments, weighting where relevant, representative involvement, decisions on inclusion and exclusion and the date of the most recent review.
Workers' Representatives May Have a Role in Category Formation
Article 3 states that categories are formed by the employer and, where applicable, in cooperation with workers' representatives in accordance with national law or practice. Article 4 also refers to objective gender-neutral criteria agreed with workers' representatives where such representatives exist. The exact process can therefore differ by Member State and workplace arrangements. Employers should identify whether consultation, agreement or another form of involvement is required before finalising the methodology. Representative involvement should be documented so the organisation can show how the category framework was developed and maintained.
The Category Directly Determines the Article 7 Pay Information
The worker category is not an abstract job-evaluation exercise. It determines which workers enter the average pay levels provided under Article 7. A weak category can therefore produce misleading sex-disaggregated averages and undermine the usefulness of the worker's information right. HR, compensation and legal teams should align the category methodology used for pay information with the broader equal-pay and job-evaluation framework. When a request arrives, the organisation should be able to identify the relevant category quickly, explain why it applies and reproduce the comparative pay figures without creating a new methodology for that individual request.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must comparable workers have the same job title?
No. The Directive focuses on same work or work of equal value. Different job titles can still be comparable if the value of the work is equivalent under objective, gender-neutral criteria.
Can workers in different departments be in the same category?
Yes, potentially. Department boundaries do not replace the work-of-equal-value assessment.
Which factors should employers use to assess work of equal value?
The Directive identifies skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions as core factors, with other relevant and justified criteria also possible.
Who decides the category of workers?
The employer forms the category and, where applicable, does so in cooperation with workers' representatives in accordance with national law or practice.
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.