What does this mean for the employee? According to R. Joskaudienė, if it turns out that they were paid less for the same or equivalent work without objective grounds, the dispute may not only be about the “salary difference” but may also raise the question of full compensation: unpaid wages, benefits in kind, material damage, non-material damage, penalties or late payment interest, and even lost work-related opportunities.
Read more Vilnius residents who trusted scammers lost a substantial sum
In other words, from now on, salary inequality can have a clear financial cost.
1. The most important thing – objective comparison
An employee’s right to claim damages does not arise simply because “I heard that a colleague earns more”.
Legally, it is important to determine whether employees perform the same work – when their functions, responsibilities, tasks, and job content essentially coincide;
or work of equal value – when the jobs may not be identical, but are equivalent according to objective criteria: similar skills, qualifications, level of responsibility, effort, and working conditions are required.
An employer may pay different wages, but the difference must be based on real, objective, and gender-neutral criteria: experience, qualifications, work results, competencies, scope of responsibility, and complexity of work.
“But ‘he negotiated better’, ‘that’s how it historically developed’ or ‘that’s how it always was with us’ should not be a sufficient explanation if employees actually perform the same or equivalent work,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
2. What can actually be compensated to an employee?
If the body examining the labor dispute determines that the employer violated the obligation to pay equal remuneration for the same or equivalent work, the employee may demand not only a formal finding of the violation.
Compensation may include:
First – unpaid wages.
This is the difference between what the employee actually received and what they should have received if the same objective remuneration principles had been applied to them as to other employees in the same or equivalent position.
Second – payments or benefits in kind.
Wages are not just a basic salary. They can also include bonuses, allowances, additional health insurance, gym membership, a company car if used for personal purposes, or other benefits, when they are essentially remuneration for work.
Third – material damage.
“For example, if due to lower remuneration, other work-related payments, allowances, bonuses, compensations, or other due amounts were calculated less for the employee. In such a case, it is important not only to name the damage but also to substantiate it with calculations,” stated R. Joskaudienė.
Fourth – non-material damage.
This can include humiliation experienced by the employee, emotional burden caused by a discriminatory situation, violation of dignity, or a long-term feeling of injustice in the work environment. Of course, non-material damage is not awarded automatically – it must be substantiated by specific circumstances.
Fifth – lost work-related opportunities.
“This is one of the most interesting new directions. An employee can raise the question not only about money already unpaid but also about what they lost due to an unfair remuneration system: the opportunity to receive a higher bonus, be promoted, enter a higher pay bracket, participate in a qualification improvement program, or receive a career-significant offer,” emphasized R. Joskaudienė.
3. Real-life examples:
Example No. 1: “The same job, but a 300 euro difference”
Two project managers work in the company – Lina and Mantas. Both serve clients of similar size, have the same level of responsibility, similar work results, an identical job description, and belong to the same job group.
However, Mantas receives 300 euros more per month. The employer cannot demonstrate better results, greater responsibility, or higher qualifications.
Read more Ribs on the grill – juicy and tender: comprehensive guide and homemade BBQ sauce recipe
In such a case, Lina could raise the question of the unpaid wage difference, late payment interest or penalties, and in certain circumstances, also material or non-material damage.
Example No. 2: “Less, because of the probationary period”
An employee is hired for a position with a probationary period. She performs the same functions as a colleague, has the same qualifications and responsibilities, but receives a lower salary simply because she is “new”.
The probationary period itself should not be a sufficient reason to pay less. The difference could only be justified if there are real objective reasons – less experience, narrower competencies, lower job complexity, or other clear criteria.
Example No. 3: “One gets a car, the other gets nothing”
Two sales managers work in the same job group. One employee is provided with a car that they can use for personal purposes, additional health insurance, and an annual bonus. The other is not, even though their work results, responsibilities, and duties are essentially the same.
If these benefits are part of the remuneration for work and there is no objective justification why they were provided only to one employee, their value can also become part of the compensation.
Example No. 4: “After parental leave – old salary”
An employee returns after parental leave. During that time, the pay scales for her job group were increased, colleagues’ wages were raised, but she is left with her old salary.
If she performs the same or equivalent work and there is no objective reason to pay less, the question of the unpaid salary difference and other related financial consequences may arise.
4. What should an employee not forget?
Compensation for damages is not automatic. Evidence is important for the employee.
In practice, according to the lawyer, significant evidence may include the employment contract, job description, remuneration system, payslips, bonus allocation procedure, evaluation results, correspondence with the employer, written requests for information on average remuneration, and the employer’s responses.
Also, according to R. Joskaudienė, it is important to understand that an employee does not have the right to simply demand a specific colleague’s salary. It is not about curiosity, but about the right to receive information necessary to assess whether fair payment is being made for the same or equivalent work.
5. What does this change?
“Until now, many pay differences remained in a ‘grey area’: the employee suspected inequality but did not have enough information, and the employer often limited themselves to a general explanation that ‘salaries are confidential’,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
Now the situation is changing.
An employee’s salary is no longer confidential information in cases where they seek to exercise their right to fair remuneration. And if it turns out that the pay difference was unjustified, the employee can demand real compensation.
Therefore, according to R. Joskaudienė, this is a signal for employers to review their remuneration systems, and for employees to know that fair wages are not just a matter of negotiation success.
Read more Baby killed by Israeli fire in West Bank, Palestinian ministry reports
