Same position, different salaries. How to verify if it constitutes pay inequality?

13.09.2025

You are a Senior HR Specialist. For three years, you have been performing your work diligently – on time, responsibly, and with total commitment. This is your first such serious role, but you feel that you have found your place.

One day, while organizing employee files, you come across the employment contract of your colleague from the accounting department – also a Senior Specialist. You glance at it and freeze. The salary? Significantly higher than yours. Yet, you hold the same position. The same rank in the company structure. You feel that something is not right. A red flag goes off in your head: „This is discrimination. I should be earning as much as she does.”

But is that really the case?

At first glance, everything looks similar – the same job title, an equivalent role in the company structure… But when you look closer, the differences begin to emerge.

Your colleague from accounting, although she has worked at the company longer, does not have as extensive experience as you. You were chosen during recruitment because you are familiar with HR solutions from other firms and, additionally, you managed a team of several people. Meanwhile, your colleague in accounting works alone and has no experience in managerial positions.

How does it work – can an employer give someone a higher salary just because they have been with the company for a long time? How to verify if someone should get a raise or if someone is being overpaid?

Let us start with the general rules. The Labour Code clearly states: employees have the right to equal remuneration for work of equal value [Art. 18(3c) § 1 of the Labour Code]. This applies to both your base salary and your bonuses.

Pay inequality can also apply to your bonus

What does work of „equal value” mean in practice? Is it actually possible to measure and compare the value of jobs that involve performing different duties?

The answer is: yes. Several steps must be taken.

In the first step, we select the criteria based on which we will evaluate a given person. The criteria are suggested by the Labour Code. These will be: qualifications, responsibility, and the effort put into performing employee duties [Art. 18(3c) § 3 of the Labour Code]. It is not the job title itself that matters, but the circumstances associated with the work.

In the second step, we proceed to the assessment of the person based on our chosen criteria. Let us start with qualifications. The first thought is education. Of course, when comparing positions and determining the amount of remuneration, this will be of significance.

However, let us look more broadly. More important than the school or course itself is the experience of the people we are comparing. Because education, while important, does not always equate to better preparation for the job. Especially when your studies are not related to what you do on a daily basis.

Your experience is of key importance

Practical experience and how long you have worked in a given area are also key. This usually determines the higher quality and efficiency of your work. Especially if you achieve better results than a person who, for example, has completed additional postgraduate studies.

In the third step, we move to evaluating the weight of the tasks the employee handles and their responsibility. The higher the responsibility, the higher the remuneration.

Example: two people hold the same position – HR Business Partner. One is responsible for an entire region, e.g., CEE, and the second for only one market. The CEE region is the company’s main area of activity. Support for employees there is of critical importance. Potential employee turnover there will cost the company more than in that one selected market. This justifies granting a higher salary to the person in the HRBP CEE position.

In the fourth step, we evaluate the amount of effort and energy the employee must put into their work. The more stressful the work, the higher its value. The courts explicitly point this out:

„Finally, a premise for valuing work is the physical and mental effort accompanying its performance, measured by the amount of expended energy and stress.” [Supreme Court Judgment of 18.09.2008, II PK 27/08].

In the fifth step, it is also worth paying attention to the individual predispositions or talents of the employee, provided they actually matter for the effectiveness or quality of the work performed. Such an additional element has been emphasized in EU regulations intended to prevent pay inequality.

Let us also remember that all criteria we introduce to assess whether someone’s pay is fair should be gender-neutral. Paying someone more just because they are a man or a woman constitutes discrimination and an obvious violation of the law.

And finally: equal pay does not mean the same for everyone.

Therefore, equal treatment does not mean equal remuneration in every case. Even for employees in the same positions. Other issues, such as seniority, experience, or the weight of performed duties, are far more significant than the job title [Supreme Court Judgment of 14.03.2018, II PK 125/17].

Equal pay does not mean the same for everyone

Rather, to everyone according to their competence, experience, and the assessment of the value of the work they provide to the organization. We primarily evaluate the outcome of the work rather than the employee’s predispositions themselves.