Part 2 Playbook Series

Article 6 — Right to Information for Workers

From Transparency in Hiring to Transparency in Employment

Following the introduction of pay transparency at the recruitment stage under Article 5, the EU Pay Transparency Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/970) extends this principle into the employment relationship through Article 6 — the right to information for workers.

This provision establishes a structured mechanism through which employees can request and receive information about their pay and how it compares to others performing equal work or work of equal value.

Unlike Article 5, which focuses on employer disclosure obligations during hiring, Article 6 introduces an ongoing, employee-driven transparency framework. It requires organisations not only to maintain accurate pay data, but also to ensure that this data can be retrieved, interpreted, and communicated in a compliant and meaningful way.

What Article 6 Requires — A Detailed Breakdown

Article 6 grants workers the right to request information related to:

1. Their Individual Pay Level

Employees are entitled to receive information about:

  • Their current pay level
  • The components of their compensation (where relevant)

This ensures that employees have a clear understanding of how their pay is structured.

2. Average Pay Levels for Comparable Work

In addition to individual pay, employees can request:

  • The average pay levels of workers performing the same work, or work of equal value

This information must be:

  • Broken down by sex (gender)
  • Provided in a manner that allows meaningful comparison

3. Scope of "Equal Work" and "Work of Equal Value"

The Directive relies on established EU principles of equal pay, requiring comparison across roles that are:

  • Identical or similar (equal work), or
  • Different but comparable in value (based on objective criteria)

This requires organisations to have a clear framework for evaluating and grouping roles.

The Shift Introduced by Article 6

Article 6 fundamentally alters the balance of information within organisations.

Traditional Model

  • Pay information largely controlled by the employer
  • Employees have limited visibility into internal pay structures
  • Comparisons are informal or speculative

Article 6 Model

  • Employees can formally request structured pay data
  • Employers must respond with verifiable, comparable information
  • Transparency becomes part of ongoing organisational practice

Key Operational Requirement — Data Readiness

The most significant implication of Article 6 is not the request itself, but the requirement that organisations be able to respond effectively.

This requires:

  • Structured and accessible pay data
  • Defined role groupings
  • Consistent methodologies for comparison

Without these, organisations may struggle to provide accurate or compliant responses to employee requests.

Defining Comparator Groups — A Core Challenge

A central aspect of Article 6 is identifying appropriate comparator groups.

What Are Comparator Groups?

Comparator groups consist of employees performing:

  • The same work, or
  • Work of equal value

These groups form the basis for calculating average pay levels.

Criteria for Defining Comparator Groups

Organisations must rely on objective factors such as:

  • Skills and qualifications
  • Responsibilities
  • Effort required
  • Working conditions

These criteria must be applied consistently across the organisation.

Risks in Comparator Definition

Improper grouping may lead to:

  • Misleading comparisons
  • Inaccurate pay gap interpretations
  • Increased risk of legal challenge

Data Disclosure Requirements

Article 6 requires that information provided to employees be:

Accurate

  • Based on reliable and up-to-date data
  • Reflective of actual pay practices

Comparable

  • Structured for meaningful comparison
  • Aligned with defined role groupings

Gender-Disaggregated

  • Average pay broken down by sex
  • Enables identification of potential disparities

Balancing Transparency with Data Protection

Although Article 6 promotes transparency, it must be implemented in compliance with data protection principles.

Key Considerations

  • Individual salaries of other employees must not be disclosed
  • Data must be aggregated and anonymised
  • Small group disclosures must be handled carefully to avoid identification

Example

If a comparator group contains only one male employee and one female employee, disclosing average pay may indirectly reveal individual salaries.

In such cases, organisations must:

  • Aggregate data further, or
  • Apply safeguards to protect identity

Frequency and Process of Requests

Employee Rights

  • Request information directly
  • Do so periodically (as defined by national law)

Employer Responsibilities

  • Respond within a reasonable timeframe
  • Ensure consistency in responses
  • Maintain records of requests and responses

Practical Implementation — A Step-by-Step Approach

Article 6 Employee Pay Information Request Flow: a flowchart showing the process from employee request submission through scope validation, comparator group identification, pay data extraction, data protection check, anonymity assessment, response preparation, and documentation
Article 6 — Employee Pay Information Request Flow. Responses must be provided within 2 months (extendable to 4 months in complex cases).
1

Establish Role Classification Framework

  • Define job families and levels
  • Identify comparable roles
2

Structure Pay Data

  • Ensure pay data is centralised and accessible
  • Align data across departments
3

Define Comparator Groups

  • Apply objective criteria
  • Validate consistency
4

Develop Response Protocols

  • Standardise how requests are handled
  • Define approval and review processes
5

Train HR and Management

  • Ensure understanding of requirements
  • Prepare teams to respond appropriately

Article 6 Information Request Flow

This flow highlights the importance of structured processes, from request validation to data extraction, anonymisation, and response documentation.

Common Pitfalls and Risks

Inadequate Data Structures

Disorganised or fragmented data makes it impossible to extract the required information accurately or within a reasonable timeframe.

Poorly Defined Comparator Groups

Inconsistent grouping across departments or lack of objective criteria can undermine the validity of responses and increase legal risk.

Data Privacy Violations

Disclosing identifiable information or failing to aggregate data appropriately can constitute a GDPR breach alongside the Directive violation.

Inconsistent Responses

Different responses to similar requests, or a lack of standardisation, can create internal contradictions and expose employers to scrutiny.

Strategic Implications of Article 6

Increased Employee Awareness

Employees gain:

  • Greater visibility into pay structures
  • Ability to assess fairness

Greater Accountability

Employers must ensure that:

  • Pay decisions are explainable
  • Differences can be justified

Foundation for Further Obligations

Article 6 supports:

Key Takeaways

  • Article 6 establishes a formal right for employees to access pay information
  • Employers must provide individual and comparative pay data
  • Data must be accurate, anonymised, and gender-disaggregated
  • The primary challenge lies in data readiness and role classification
  • Structured processes are essential for consistent compliance

Ready to handle Article 6 information requests?

GenderGov™ helps organisations structure pay data, define comparator groups, and build the documentation needed to respond to employee requests with confidence.

Talk to Us