By Don Lustenberger
BLOG OVERVIEW: With the June 7, 2026 transposition deadline now passed, this Ask the Navigator question from DCI's monthly EU Pay Transparency Navigator newsletter examines how the first Member States to enact Pay Transparency Directive legislation are defining “categories of workers.” It explains the distinction between “same work” and “work of equal value”—drawing on EIGE’s gender-neutral job evaluation toolkit—and details how Lithuania (through job-evaluation-based position groups) and Italy (through CCNL classification tiers) each combine same-work and equal-value roles into a single category.
Well, we have some additional information on how Member States are interpreting worker categories reflecting “same work or work of equal value.” And this is an important question because employers need to first define worker categories appropriately before they can respond to worker right to information requests and prepare for pay gap reporting.
Although most Member States missed the June 7, 2026, deadline for transposing the Directive into law, five countries (Greece, Italy, Malta, Lithuania, and Slovakia) have enacted legislation as of this writing. And really, only two, Lithuania and Italy, have been prescriptive in defining worker categories. The others have mostly restated the Directive’s definition (Article 3(1)(h)):
‘category of workers’ means workers performing the same work or work of equal value grouped in a non-arbitrary manner based on the non-discriminatory and objective gender-neutral criteria referred to in Article 4(4), by the workers’ employer and, where applicable, in cooperation with the workers’ representatives in accordance with national law and/or practice.
This language may provoke the following questions, many of which we have heard or discussed with lawyers and employers:
Employers understandably want clarity when it comes to defining worker categories so they can act.
Before we dive into Lithuania and Italy, it’s useful to note that the EU has, through the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), shared more detailed information that provides insight into some of these questions. Specifically, the EIGE’s toolkit on gender-neutral job evaluation illustrates the difference between a gender pay difference for same work and for work of equal value accordingly (p. 144):
Here, the EU is making it clear that same work involves the nature of the work being performed: its tasks and duties. Work of equal value is based on the level of skill, effort, responsibility involved in the work—and the working conditions—independent of the tasks and duties. It may also be reasonable to infer from this example that work of equal value is intended to span common organizational structures such as job families, departments, or business units. Grouping workers by these units would undermine a key intent of the Directive: to address segregated labor markets that perpetuate structural gender pay disparities.
The toolkit also states that the goal of a gender-neutral job evaluation (see this previous DCI Navigator piece for more information on job evaluation) is to create “a job classification system that groups jobs of equal value into the same pay grade” (p. 11). This is probably the closest any language comes to equating an employer’s (job-evaluation-based) pay grades with worker categories reflecting work of equal value. This language also ties to the Directive’s requirement that “Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that employers have pay structures ensuring equal pay for equal work or work of equal value” (Article 4(1)).
Lithuania
Turning to Lithuania and Italy, we can begin to see how Member States are putting the EU’s worker categories language into practice. First, Lithuania’s Labor Code Art. 140 states that positions with same or equal-value work are assigned to the same position group. Lithuania has interpreted the Directive’s language to mean that positions involving the same work or work of equal value together form a single worker category for the purpose of pay gap reporting and worker right to information requests.
Second, formal guidance shared by Lithuania explicitly warns employers not to group workers into categories by job title. It makes the point that a lawyer and an accountant, two very different roles, can land in the same worker category if a job evaluation determines their work to be of equal value. This is consistent with the EIGE’s guidance.
Third, Lithuania’s guidance details steps for conducting job evaluation to develop pay structures reflecting work of equal value. Positions are to be scored on the basis of skills, qualifications, effort, responsibility, working conditions, and other relevant criteria as appropriate. Positions are to then be grouped by comparable score ranges, and these groups reflect the worker categories that employers are expected to use for gender pay gap reporting and right to information requests. So, Lithuania leverages a worker category framework that combines positions of same work and work of equal value into the same category, and one may conclude that constituent positions need not have the exact same job evaluation scores to be considered of equal value.
Italy
Italy arrives at a similar place in terms of worker categories, but through a different mechanism (detailed in its transposition of the Directive). Industry-specific Nationwide Collective Labor Agreements (Contratti Collettivi Nazionali di Lavoro or CCNLs) in Italy have their own professional classification systems (livelli di inquadramento). These classification systems organize jobs into ranked tiers with associated pay bands. Italy’s transposition of the Directive employs these CCNL tiers as worker categories. In many cases, a tier includes multiple, different jobs deemed to be of equal value, and positions that perform the same work also appear in the same tier.
There are a few takeaways here for employers. If it weren’t already clear, employers can expect equal-value worker categories to encompass ranges of jobs that, though potentially very different in the nature of work performed, are valued similarly. So far, Italy and Lithuania have been relatively prescriptive about what worker categories should look like, and they fit this model. Additional guidance from the other Member States that have transposed the Directive is needed before we can understand what worker categories will look like for them. Consequently, many employers may reasonably hold off on making significant changes or revamping pay structures until remaining Member States transpose the Directive or provide guidance on defining worker categories. In the meantime, however, employers can still run proactive pay gap analyses and ensure job descriptions are compliant with the Directive. We recommend that employers work with external legal counsel and pay-equity and compensation experts to prepare for the Directive given the uncertainty.
DCI Consulting helps employers turn complex EU Pay Transparency requirements into clear, defensible pay decisions before reporting becomes mandatory. We partner with your organization to establish or review worker categories, conduct required gender pay gap analyses, develop targeted remediation strategies, and provide guidance on right to information requests. Visit our EU Pay Transparency Directive page to learn how your organization can prepare to confidently meet upcoming deadlines and subsequent reporting requirements.