Same job, different pay: 7 criteria for pay differentiation in 2026
Pay transparency changes the question an employee can ask their boss: not “how much does my colleague earn,” but “why do I earn this much.” We have compiled which justifications for pay differences will stand up in that conversation, and which will not.
What is changing and from when
The principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value has been in the Labour Code for a long time (Art. 18³c). Directive 2023/970 (opens in a new tab) does not change it. What it does do is give employees tools to check whether the company complies with this principle. The deadline for implementing the directive passed on 7 June 2026, and Poland did not meet it.
The draft act (UC127) already has a second version, dated 29 April 2026. With the planned six-month vacatio legis, the full regulations will take effect at the earliest at the beginning of 2027. Some changes are already in force: since 24 December 2025, an employer must inform candidates about pay and may not ask them about previous earnings.
Once the act enters into force, the company will face three changes. According to the draft, job evaluation and the disclosure of pay criteria will cover all employers, including micro-enterprises. An employee will not learn a colleague’s pay, but will be able to ask why they themselves earn what they do and how they compare with the average for similar work. The employer will respond in writing within two months. In a pay discrimination dispute, the employer will have to show that its criteria are objective and gender-neutral.
According to the draft, the gender pay gap report will cover companies with 100 or more employees: those with 250 or more annually, smaller ones every three years. Industry commentaries differ in the details of thresholds and transitional deadlines, so we will know the final shape from the adopted act. If the report shows a gap of at least 5 percent without objective justification, the company will have six months to take corrective measures.
How we compiled the criteria and what a small company gets out of it
The basis is the four criteria from Art. 4 of the directive: skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. We added three that are grounded in case law and practice: location, length of service and work performance. We describe each in the same way: who it is for, what it justifies, where the risk of a discrimination claim lies, and how to document it.
All positions in the company must be assessed according to the same criteria, regardless of its size. Smaller companies usually choose simpler methods: ranking or classification. Medium-sized and large ones use the analytical points-based method, in which each criterion has a weight and a points scale. The cost of job evaluation starts at several thousand zlotys and rises with the number of positions. If job descriptions are up to date and a spreadsheet is used, the main cost is time, from several weeks to several months.
Seven criteria that can be defended
The order is not a ranking. The strongest defence is several criteria at once, described before a dispute, not after it.
1. Skills required for the position
Who it is for: every company. What it justifies: a higher rate where the work requires rarer technical, specialist or operational knowledge. The market confirms this: according to Manpower, 7 in 10 employers have trouble finding qualified production workers, and among the most sought-after skills is building AI-based applications (22 percent).
Risk: what is assessed is the requirements of the position, not the talent of a particular person. A diploma that the job does not require does not justify higher pay. Documentation: in a small company, an up-to-date job description with a list of required qualifications; in a large one, the same requirements translated into points.
2. Physical, mental and emotional effort
Who it is for: companies with customer service, physical work, care work. What it justifies: a higher burden in the position. The directive explicitly requires emotional labour to be taken into account, which traditional systems often undervalue.
Risk: a system that scores lifting but ignores conversations with difficult customers undervalues some positions. Documentation: a description of typical situations in the position; in a large organisation, separate effort sub-criteria with weights.
3. Scope of responsibility
Who it is for: companies with more than one level. What it justifies: the position’s impact on finances, safety, people and quality. According to the Devire report “Production 360°”, a production shift manager can expect 10,000-15,000 PLN gross per month, and a plant director 23,000-65,000 PLN. A spread of 42,000 PLN within one role shows how different its scope can be across companies. In the Sedlak & Sedlak analysis, a manager’s pay exceeds that of a senior specialist by an average of 54 percent (39 percent in 2019).
Risk: the title of manager alone proves nothing, and a managerial position does not automatically have a higher value than an expert role. The authors of the Sedlak & Sedlak analysis note that level alone does not determine the size of the difference. Documentation: in a small company, the scope of decisions and budget in writing; in a large one, position levels with a description of responsibilities.
4. Working conditions
Who it is for: production, logistics, shift work and field work. What it justifies: a difficult physical environment, mental pressure, irregular working hours, contact with difficult situations.
Risk: an allowance for conditions must be granted to everyone who works in them, not selected individuals. Documentation: occupational risk assessment, schedules, job description; in a corporation, one scale for all sites.
5. Location and the local labour market
Who it is for: companies with branches in several cities. What it justifies: higher living costs, higher rates offered by competitors, more difficult recruitment. Łukasz Komuda of the Foundation for Socio-Economic Initiatives notes that if in one city you can find an employee for 6,000 PLN, and in another you have to offer 12,000 PLN, the employer has no economic reason to pay more in the first one.
Risk: local differences may mask non-substantive reasons, for example lower pay in positions filled in a given region mainly by women. Documentation: data from Statistics Poland and Eurostat on rental costs, shopping basket and transport, current salary reports for the region, and regular rate reviews.
6. Length of service and experience
Who it is for: every company, especially one without an extensive pay scale. What it justifies: the Supreme Court allows length of service as a criterion for differentiating basic pay when it translates into the quality and efficiency of work (II PK 22/17). In the Cadman case (C-17/05, 2006), the Court of Justice of the EU held that rewarding experience does not as a rule require separate proof of appropriateness.
Risk: in one of its cases, the Supreme Court held that a proven difference in length of service is not enough when the employer did not show its connection with work quality. Length of service alone also does not determine whether the work is equal (I PK 339/14). It must not be counted twice: in the basic salary and in a seniority allowance. Documentation: periodic evaluations and the scope of tasks performed independently.
7. Work results measured by indicators
Who it is for: sales, customer service, any role with a measurable result. What it justifies: differences in bonuses and raises, if the indicators are transparent and the same for everyone.
Risk: discretionary bonuses are harder to defend than those based on clear KPIs (key performance indicators). Equal base salaries will not hide in the report a gap in unequal access to bonuses. According to the National Labour Inspectorate, occasional payments do not in themselves determine discrimination, but regular differentiation in access to allowances already may. Documentation: bonus rules and goals recorded before the settlement period.
Three practices that will not stand up after the directive is implemented
These arguments worked as long as no one could demand a written justification.
“We pay more in Warsaw because it is more expensive there”
Location itself may be a good reason, but a general statement is not. Elżbieta Niezgódka from the Niezgódka law firm describes what will be missing from such a response:
For example, in the context of the geographical criterion, the employer’s response cannot be reduced to a formulaic statement that “we pay more in Warsaw because the cost of living is higher there.” The employer must provide a justification based on objective, verifiable and gender-neutral criteria.
“It’s a different company, so we do not compare”
The directive introduces the single source test. If pay in several group companies is decided by headquarters, an employee in a company in a smaller city earning 10,000 PLN can compare themselves with a colleague in the Warsaw company who receives 15,000 PLN. Headquarters must then include all related companies in the pay structure, and the employee may submit a request directly to its HR department, even abroad.
Bonuses for “commitment” and “availability”
Criteria that sound neutral may discriminate indirectly. Informally rewarded willingness to work overtime puts, among others, parents at a disadvantage. “Commitment” alone without a measurable definition is not enough.
What pay transparency will not change
Transparency does not automatically mean pay rises. Komuda points out that companies may divide positions into such narrow categories that comparison loses its meaning, while the employee’s bargaining power will still be determined by the local market. The new data may help trade unions, but according to him it is “poor consolation for nearly 90 percent of employees who are not unionised”.
What to choose if you run a small company, and what in a large organisation
Small company: start with the four criteria from the directive, supplemented by length of service and results. Ranking and classification methods are simpler and cheaper, but the analytical points-based method, which can be run in a spreadsheet, is regarded as the safest in light of the directive, also in a small company. Up-to-date job descriptions and bonus rules are enough. If you do not have an HR department, plan consultant support in the budget.
Large organisation: choose the analytical points-based method and first determine who in the group actually decides on pay, because the scope of comparisons depends on it. Gather regional data for each location and review discretionary bonuses before the first gap report. The authors of the Sedlak & Sedlak analysis point out that if managers’ duties were growing faster than their pay, such a review changes the pay proportions between levels.