Work of equal value - why it matters

This principle looks beyond job titles to the substance of the role. A fair comparison considers whether although possibly different in nature, two roles may be of equal value when assessed against objective gender-neutral factors like skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The weighting of certain factors may differ by role, but the assessment should be evidence‑based and documented. Case law confirms equal pay rights apply even without a formal job‑classification exercise.

Referring to the right “comparator”

A crucial step is identifying a lawful “comparator” whose job can be compared with the specific job in question. The comparison should be like‑for‑like in substance, focusing on demands in skills, responsibility, and conditions. Differences in professional training or qualifications that lead to materially different duties may disqualify a comparator. Where a real‑life comparator does not exist, other evidence such as statistics and a hypothetical comparator may be used to show unequal pay.

Case law shows that comparators may even be applied across different establishments, provided that common terms apply at both sites, or if one organisation or “single source” is responsible for setting pay and capable of putting any inequality right. Therefore, where two roles require comparable training, demands, and accountability, they may be of equal value and should be remunerated equally. Otherwise, any pay differences should be objectively justified and simply relying on “market forces” and market conditions is unlikely to be sufficient if they disproportionately disadvantage women.

While current Maltese legislation prohibits pay discrimination within the same class and role of employment, EU caselaw takes a broader view, and looks at the substance of the work, not just the job title.

In the UK case Asda v Brierley, the Court of Appeal determined that female retail staff could be compared with male distribution staff working at different sites. The Court applied the “common terms” test, which compares terms by class of employees across establishments. In addition, the Court also confirmed that where the same employer sets terms, this is deemed to be a single source for EU law purposes.

The Tribunal accepted the employers’ focus on cost and business-needs and that there was no evidence of conscious or unconscious bias directly causing the differences between sexes of the workforce, stating therefore that claims of direct sex discrimination could not be upheld. This being said, it was also determined that since retail staff were predominantly female and warehouse labourers were predominantly male, the market‑benchmarking approach placed women at a particular disadvantage which could lead to indirect discrimination. The burden then shifted to the employer to show each difference was a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim and while some were proportionate, others were not.

From a local perspective, in January 2026, the Maltese Industrial Tribunal examined the merits of “equal value” in Jan Sammut v HSBC Bank Malta plc, where the Head of Trusts argued that his work was of equal value to that of the CEO and Head of HR.

The Tribunal examined the objective factors (skills, effort, responsibility, conditions) of each role and considered whether CEO or HR Head were lawful comparators. The Tribunal determined that Mr. Sammut’s role was not of equal value to that of the CEO or Head of HR due to the absence of genuine equivalence in responsibility and substance of their role.

In the 2024 UK case, Thandi and others v Next Retail Ltd and Next Distributors Ltd, the Tribunal found retail sales consultants’ work to be of equal value to warehouse operatives’ work. The Tribunal then examined key terms individually, where it determined that the difference in treatment could not be justified for certain core terms, such as differences in basic pay and certain premiums such as overtime premiums and paid rest breaks. The Tribunal however held that other differences such as productivity bonuses and peak premium bonuses were justified as proportionate measures to pursue legitimate business aims at the time.

With new transparency requirements, employers should have objective, reasoned, gender-neutral systems and pay structures in place to evaluate roles and justify pay differences. Without clear, objective mechanisms, organisations risk legal challenge, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny.

Practical key takeaways for employers

Our team of experts can prepare you for the changes that will be brought about by the Pay Transparency Directive. We’ll take a close look at your employment documentation and policies to ensure they’re up-to-date, effective, and foster equality. Our team will assess your pay practices, performance review systems, and employee benefits. We can help design and roll out incentive and share option schemes that motivate and reward your team. We’ll also review and assist by carrying out job architecture and classification exercises.

Get in touch