The case
A female trainer/consultant in the field and a works council member was in dispute with her employer over gender-based discrimination in pay. Following a company-wide pay rise in December 2024, she submitted a formal request for information. The head of human resources stated that the median in the reference group “field service trainers/consultants” was EUR 3,946.00 gross per month, and justified the discrepancy on the basis of her male colleagues’ “car dealership experience” and their longer length of service.
In her claim, the claimant sought information in accordance with the law regarding the median of the male reference group, as well as related claims for payment, a finding of gender-based discrimination, and monetary compensation for the infringement of her personal rights.
The court’s decision
The Herne Labour Court upheld the claim in its entirety with regard to the right to information.
- Low requirements for the reference job
No strict requirements are to be imposed on the specification of the reference job. In individual cases, employees do not have all the necessary information and must therefore merely describe the reference job in a “reasonable manner” and “as specifically as possible” in order to rule out an arbitrary selection. - The core of the work is decisive
Of 158 employees with the job title ‘Field Trainer/Consultant’, 121 are male. Taking into account the nature of the work, training requirements and working conditions, these employees are not to be regarded as being in a non-comparable situation. The core of the duties is to be regarded as at least equivalent to that of the plaintiff, an ‘ ’ – different operational contexts or additional qualifications do not alter this in any material way. - “Car dealership experience” and length of service are not relevant
The distinguishing feature of ‘car dealership experience’ does not reveal any objectively verifiable difference. Nor has the difference in length of service been demonstrated in an objectively verifiable manner and is therefore not a feature precluding comparability. Consequently, the defendant’s arguments to date did not allow for the conclusion that the right to information had been satisfied. - No right of access to gross wages as an individual right
The right of access and evaluation under Section 13(3) of the EntgTranspG is a claim of the works council against the employer, not an individual right of the employee seeking information. Furthermore, it does not exist if the employer withdraws the request for information.
What does this mean in practice?
For employees, the ruling is a clear boost: it is sufficient to plausibly define the comparison group on the basis of the job title in the employment contract. General references to special qualifications or industry experience are not sufficient to invalidate the right to information.
For employers, the ruling means that pay differences within the same occupational group must be justified objectively and specifically. A uniform job title without a transparent pay system carries a significant risk of being unable to effectively meet requests for information – with possible subsequent claims for pay equalisation and damages.
Do you have any questions about the Pay Transparency Act or the design of legally compliant remuneration structures? The team at Buse can provide you with comprehensive advice – for both employers and employees.
