For years, length of service has remained one of the most frequently used criteria for differentiating employee situations. It influences remuneration, seniority bonuses, anniversary awards, promotion opportunities, and access to specific benefits. As Chief Labor Inspector Marcin Stanecki emphasizes, although length of service is a permissible and well-established criterion in labor law, it cannot be applied automatically and thoughtlessly.
This position is particularly important in the context of the implementation of Directive (EU) 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council on pay transparency and the principle of equal pay for men and women for equal work or work of equal value.
Seniority is not a substitute for job evaluation
In his speech before the Parliamentary Committee for State Audit, the Chief Labor Inspector pointed out that equal treatment does not mean treating all employees identically. Differentiating their situations is permissible if it is based on objective, justified, and proportionate criteria.
At the same time, he emphasized that seniority should not replace a true assessment of the value of the work performed. Of particular importance here is the distinction between formal seniority and actual professional experience, qualifications, level of responsibility, and scope of duties performed.
These elements constitute the foundation of job evaluation systems, which will play an increasingly important role in employers' remuneration policies in the coming years.
EU Directive 2023/970 requires objective remuneration criteria
One of the directive's main objectives is to ensure that wages are determined based on objective and gender-neutral criteria. This means moving away from arbitrary pay decisions towards transparent job evaluation principles.
In practice, this means that employers will need to be able to demonstrate why a particular position was valued higher than another and what criteria influenced the pay differences between employees.
In this context, the position of the Chief Labour Inspector is clear – length of service may remain one of the elements influencing the amount of remuneration, but it should not be the only or dominant justification for pay differences.
Job evaluation as a tool to ensure equal pay
Implementation of the directive is increasing the importance of job evaluation systems. They allow for the evaluation of positions according to uniform criteria, including: required qualifications, level of responsibility, complexity of tasks performed, degree of autonomy, and impact on organizational performance.
By using such criteria, the employer is able to demonstrate that pay differences result from the value of the work performed and not from the personal characteristics of employees or historically established pay practices.
The new role of the National Labor Inspectorate
As Marcin Stanecki pointed out, the proposed regulations implementing the directive also provide for an expansion of the National Labour Inspectorate's powers. This will include, among other things, issues related to the so-called pay gap, joint pay assessment, and supporting the enforcement of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
Labor inspectors will still not be the body resolving discrimination disputes, but their role in assessing the transparency of remuneration systems and the criteria for differentiating remuneration used by employers will increase significantly.
Seniority will remain important, but it will not be enough
The conclusions drawn from the Chief Labour Inspector's position are particularly important for employers preparing to implement new obligations arising from EU Directive 2023/970. Length of service remains an acceptable criterion for differentiating employees' situations, but its significance should be assessed within the broader context of the value of work.
Employers who want to reduce the risk of pay discrimination disputes and prepare their organizations for new pay transparency requirements should analyze their pay systems and implement objective job evaluation methods today. These will serve as a fundamental tool for demonstrating that pay differences stem from the actual value of work, not arbitrary or opaque criteria.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of June 19, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
