- The Supreme Court (Social Chamber) ruled that the pay register must record average values, not individual salaries.
- It annuls a National Court ruling that sided with the unions, which sought data on posts held by a single person.
- Individual data requires great caution and is not needed to check pay equality between women and men.
On 27 November 2024 the Supreme Court released a ruling of its Social Chamber on the pay register that companies must keep. Several unions had brought collective disputes so that the company would hand over all pay data, including that of professional groups or posts held by a single person. The National Court agreed with them, but the Supreme Court annuls that decision.
The conclusion is that the register must show average pay broken down by sex, but need not include data identifying a specific worker’s salary. The Court relies on the Workers’ Statute, which speaks of average and not individual values, and points out that no law requires individual data to be included in the register. It adds that individual pay data must be handled with great caution. The ruling bears on how companies handle requests for pay information from unions and from the workforce’s legal representatives.
What the pay register is
The Workers’ Statute requires every company to keep a register with the average values of the salaries, salary supplements and non-salary payments of its workforce, broken down by sex and distributed by professional groups, categories or posts of equal value. Workers can access it through their legal representatives.
Its purpose is to detect and correct pay gaps between women and men. It does not aim to make each person’s pay public, but to offer an aggregate picture that allows comparison of equivalent posts. The debate now settled is how far that aggregation goes when a group or a post is held by a single person, in which case the average coincides with that person’s salary. In that case, handing over the average amounts to revealing the salary, which raises a conflict with personal data protection.
What the Court decided
The unions asked for all the data to be handed over, including that of posts with a single holder. The Supreme Court replies that the law requires averages and not individual figures, and that no one has argued that individual data are needed to achieve pay equality between women and men. It clarifies that each person’s salary is counted when calculating the totals by sex, but that does not oblige it to be exposed.
The ruling thus protects a double balance: the transparency that equality monitoring needs and the financial privacy of employees. The press note does not rule on group-size thresholds or on the specific regulations, so it will be important to read the full judgment for doubtful cases. Nor does it prevent recourse to other routes, such as the Labour Inspectorate or the courts, if a specific discrimination is suspected.
Looking to Europe and to your company
The debate does not end here. Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency, which Member States must transpose before 7 June 2026, will give employees the right to know the average pay levels, broken down by sex, of those doing the same work or work of equal value. Companies will have to prepare for a greater level of information than today’s.
In the meantime, check that the pay register is up to date, that the criteria for grouping posts of equal value are documented and that there is a protocol for handling requests from legal representatives. When a group is very small, aggregate data can reveal individual data: that is the kind of situation in which it is worth seeking advice before replying. Documenting the criteria used to define posts of equal value will help both now and when the directive is transposed.
Pay equality is measured in averages; privacy, with prudence.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
