Pay Transparency in Lithuania: 4 New Rights in 2026

Pay transparency in Lithuania could give employees 4 new rights: the right to receive their own pay indicators, the right to compare them through institutions with average pay data for the same job group by gender, clearer job-grouping rules, and compensation for unequal pay for work of equal value. On 19 May 2026, the Seimas approved these Labour Code amendments at the consideration stage, and Lithuania aims to transpose the EU rules by June.

The change matters not only to workers who want to understand whether they are paid fairly, but also to employers who will have to prepare and disclose pay data by job group. Many businesses still treat this as a broad equality topic with no immediate operational effect. In practice, it means specific data requests, new internal processes, and possible financial liability. The guide below explains what employees may ask for, what employers will need to prepare, and why it makes sense to get ready before the final vote.

What does pay transparency in Lithuania mean for employees?

The core idea is simple: people should have more real information about how pay is set instead of being left with a suspicion that someone in a comparable role earns more. Until now, it has often been difficult to prove such situations because an employee usually sees only their own contract and a few general promises about equal treatment. The new rules would change exactly that.

But this is the part that matters most: the planned right is not just to receive a general reply that the pay system is fair. An employee could ask for specific indicators in writing. That includes their annual pay, their average hourly pay for the month, and their average hourly pay for the year. In addition, they could obtain average pay indicators by gender for the same job group in which their role sits.

This does not mean that employers would publish every colleague’s name and salary. The logic is group-based, not person-based. Employers would have to group roles using at least 4 criteria: skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. In other words, the comparison is meant to happen between jobs of equal or similar value, not between two random contracts.

There is also a clear financial consequence in the proposal. If a body examining a labour dispute found that the employer had failed to pay equal remuneration for the same or equivalent work, the employee could receive compensation. That would cover unpaid wages or benefits in kind, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and compensation for lost work-related opportunities. So this is not only a compliance issue. It can become a cost issue very quickly.

Who is affected among workers and employers?

First, the change matters to employees who suspect that their pay may differ from others doing work of the same value, but who currently have no practical way to verify that. This can affect office staff, retail teams, factory workers, and service employees alike. If jobs are of equal value, the fact that they sit in different departments or carry slightly different labels may not be enough to justify a pay gap.

The second major group is employers. A general statement that the pay policy is objective will no longer be enough. Companies will need a job map, clear pay-setting criteria, documented explanations for differences, and a process for answering employee requests. This is especially important for organisations that grew quickly and negotiated salaries individually without reviewing the whole structure.

The issue also sits inside a wider 2026 reform picture. We have already covered broader legal and tax changes in What Will Change in Lithuania from 2026 – New Taxes, Labor Rights, and Pension Reforms. It is also useful not to confuse this topic with minimum wage changes, because pay transparency is not about one official amount. It is about the rules used to justify pay differences inside an organisation. For the wider salary context, see also Minimum Wage in Lithuania from 2026: New Monthly and Hourly Rates.

When could the change take effect and which numbers matter?

For now, the most important point is that the reform is not final yet. On 19 May 2026, the Seimas approved the bill at the consideration stage: 80 members voted in favour, 3 voted against, and 19 abstained. That shows clear political support, but the final legal step is still ahead.

Here is the practical point: the official statement says the aim is to transpose Directive (EU) 2023/970 into Lithuanian law by June. That means companies should not wait until the final text is published in the legal register. If your organisation has no proper job-grouping system or pay-data workflow today, building one in a week will be difficult.

Another practical detail matters here. Public discussion often focuses on the gender pay gap, but the reform matters more broadly because it changes how evidence and pay data may be obtained whenever there is a question about equal pay for work of equal value. That can affect long-established pay models, not only new hiring decisions.

How would this work in practice if salaries differ?

Imagine this situation: Asta and Mantas work in the same job group, and their functions, responsibility, and working conditions are essentially comparable. Asta earns EUR 2,200 gross, while Mantas earns EUR 2,450 gross. The difference alone would not automatically prove a breach. The employer may have an objective reason, such as a clearly higher level of experience or documented extra responsibility.

But if there is no clear, documented reason, the pay transparency rules would give Asta stronger tools. She could ask for her own pay indicators in writing and, through the Labour Inspectorate, the Labour Disputes Commission, or a trade union, obtain average pay data by gender for the same job group. If the data showed that one gender was systematically paid less in equivalent roles, the basis for a dispute would become much stronger.

This is where the practical value becomes obvious. If the unjustified difference were EUR 250 per month, the unpaid wage gap alone would reach EUR 3,000 over a year. Additional compensation could follow if pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage were found. For employers, that means it is usually cheaper to fix the pay structure now than to defend a weak system later.

It is equally important to understand that work of equal value is not the same as an identical job title. If one role involves more decisions, greater accountability, or more demanding conditions, it may be valued differently. So the core question inside a company will not be “do the titles match” but “does the work match in value under the 4 criteria”.

What should you do step by step?

If you want to prepare in a practical way, the best approach is to rely on documents rather than assumptions. This framework will help most when both employees and employers move from vague concerns to a written process.

1. Identify the relevant job group. Start by checking which group your role would fall into under skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
2. Collect pay documents. Keep your employment contract, bonus rules, payslips, and any written communication about pay changes.
3. Submit a written request. Ask for specific indicators, not a general reassurance. That means annual pay, average hourly pay, and the job-group averages by gender.
4. Check whether the differences are objectively explained. If the employer cites experience or responsibility, ask for a clear link between that reason and the job-group criteria.
5. Contact institutions if the reply is not convincing. The practical route would be the Labour Inspectorate, the Labour Disputes Commission, or a trade union that can help obtain comparable data.
6. Employers should prepare in parallel. Review the job map, update the pay policy, and create a standard process for handling employee requests.

And one more point matters here: transparency works best before a conflict escalates. If a company starts mapping job groups only after the first complaint arrives, its position will often be weaker. For employees, the main task is to move from suspicion to a documented request trail.

Which mistakes are easiest to avoid?

The most common mistake is to assume that every employee will see every colleague’s exact salary by name. The proposal is about grouped indicators by gender, not a full public salary list. The second mistake is to think that any pay difference will automatically become unlawful. If a difference is objective, consistent, and documented, it may still be lawful.

Source: Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 2026-05-19. Original announcement.

Frequently asked questions