Pay Transparency Pressure: Adverts, an Information Request and a 14% Gap Nobody Can Explain

Treat the EU pay transparency framework as a floor and each national transposition as the actual obligation, because the group operates in six states and the directive permits more protective national rules.

The job adverts and salary-history questions are the clearest exposure. The framework requires employers to give candidates information about the initial pay level or range, whether in the advert or before interview, and prohibits asking candidates about their current or previous pay. Thirty-one adverts and a routine recruiter practice is a systemic finding, not an isolated lapse, and is the kind of thing a labour inspectorate or a works council will use as evidence of a pay-setting culture.

The information request is time-bound and specific: the employee is entitled in writing to her pay level and to the average pay levels of comparable workers, broken down by sex. A department-wide range is a non-answer. Refusing or deflecting creates two problems - a standalone breach, and evidence in any later equal pay claim that the employer could not produce comparable data, which shifts the burden of proof against it.

The 14% gap sits above the threshold that typically triggers a joint pay assessment with workers' representatives where the gap is not justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria. Whether it is reportable depends on whether the grade constitutes a category of workers doing equal work or work of equal value, which is why re-grading cannot be deferred.

The subsidiary size split matters for reporting: the highest reporting and assessment obligations attach to larger employers, and the group must not assume the parent's size governs each entity.

Justification is a documentary test, not an explanatory one. The acceptable criteria are objective and gender-neutral: documented seniority, performance measured against a published scale applied consistently, scarce-skill or market data from a defined and dated source, and geographic pay differentials where the same grade spans locations with genuinely different labour markets.

'Market adjustment' and 'legacy retention payment' fail that test as currently evidenced, because neither has a written rationale, a decision-maker, a date, or a criterion that could equally have applied to a woman in the same grade. Two retention payments in particular look like a red circle that has hardened into a permanent differential.

Practical sequence: (1) re-grade the job architecture and map every employee to a grade, because you cannot analyse equal work without it; (2) run the pay-gap analysis within grade, controlling for full-time equivalent, seniority and location, and identify where the 14% actually sits - a headline figure can be produced by three or four individuals; (3) document every remaining differential against the criteria above; (4) for anything unjustifiable, remediate with a defined budget and timetable, and convert retention amounts into a time-limited red circle with a sunset date rather than a permanent premium.

The joint pay assessment is triggered where a gap of 5% or more in any category of workers is not justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria - and it must be carried out with workers' representatives, not presented to them afterwards. That means payroll must be able to produce grade-level, sex-disaggregated data on demand, which is the real readiness question for the works council meeting.

Payroll owns the evidentiary base, not the legal judgement.

Data. A pay data set at employee level containing grade, sex, FTE, base pay, variable pay received, location, start date and contract type, refreshed monthly and retained so that any historical point can be reconstructed. The definition of each field must be identical across the six entities - a 'base salary' that includes car allowance in one country and excludes it in another will produce a fake gap and destroy credibility with the works council.

Request handling. A workflow with a logged receipt date, a two-month clock, a defined response template giving the employee's pay level and the average for comparable workers by sex, and a record of what was sent. Without the log you cannot prove timeliness.

Recruitment interface. Remove the salary-history field from the applicant tracking system and interview guides, and require the advertised range to be drawn from the internal band rather than negotiated per candidate - otherwise the advert and the pay structure diverge and the exercise is cosmetic.

Controls. A country legal register tracking each transposition date, reporting threshold and assessment trigger, with an owner per entity; an annual review of red circles; and a check that advertised ranges fall inside the grade band.

Payroll's accountability stops at producing accurate, consistent, auditable data and the documented process around it. The justification decision, the remediation budget and the interaction with works councils sit with HR and Legal, with payroll as the evidence provider.