Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

In theory, the law prohibits pay discrimination. The problem, however, is enforcement in practice and identifying situations where such discrimination occurs. Without transparency, a woman paid less than a man in the same position will not know she is being discriminated against. The lack of pay transparency is one of the main obstacles to applying the principle of equal pay. Without concrete information, discrimination cannot be proven – and therefore cannot be corrected.

Recent measures, such as the right of employees to request information on pay levels for comparable positions, or the obligation of large companies to periodically report pay differences between women and men, bring the law to life in practice.

Consciously ignoring an unjustified pay gap constitutes a violation of legal obligations and may lead to sanctions. According to the provisions introduced by Law 107/2022, employers who fail to remedy objective, unjustified gender pay gaps exceeding 5% can be sanctioned. Sanctions may take the form of contraventional fines imposed by the State Labor Inspectorate or control bodies, in accordance with the Contraventional Code of the Republic of Moldova. In addition to fines, there is also a risk that discriminated employees may file complaints with the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination or initiate legal actions in court.

In a legal proceeding, if an employee claims unjustified pay gaps as discrimination, the court may compel you to pay compensation (material damages – retroactive payment of the pay differences, and moral damages). Furthermore, in such disputes, the burden of proof will largely rest with the employer – you will have to demonstrate that there was no discrimination, which is difficult if you have already established internally that you lack an objective justification for the difference.
In addition to the legal consequences, the impact on the company’s reputation and working environment must be considered. Once employees find out (through internal reports or discussions) that unfair differences exist and management fails to correct them, morale drops, trust in management decreases, and you may lose valuable talent. Also, in the current context, diversity and inclusion aspects are increasingly important: business partners, investors, or the general public may react negatively if it becomes known that a company tolerates pay inequalities.

If, however, for various reasons, you missed the remediation and are caught off guard by an inspection or a complaint, show immediate willingness to correct the situation and cooperate with the authorities. The best strategy remains prevention: implement a robust fair pay system and react promptly to any unjustified difference. This protects you from legal risks and maintains a healthy organizational culture.

Pay equity does not eliminate salary flexibility; rather, it requires this flexibility to be used fairly and impartially. In other words, you can still negotiate starting salaries and offer differentiated bonuses or benefits—however, the basis for these differences must be objective and transparent criteria. The European Pay Transparency Directive clarifies that individual salary negotiation remains possible; negotiation is not prohibited, but it must be based on gender-neutral factors (such as skills, experience, performance) and must be documented. Similarly, you can reward an employee who achieved exceptional results with a higher bonus than their colleagues—it is only natural to reward superior performance.

The key is consistency: if two employees achieved the same results in comparable roles, they should receive equal opportunities for a bonus. Differences in variable remuneration (bonuses, commissions, premiums) are permitted, but they must be applied uniformly to similar situations and clearly justified in the remuneration policy. Equal treatment does not mean “forced uniformization“, but rather the elimination of arbitrariness and bias. As long as you can demonstrate that a higher salary or an additional bonus is due to factors such as the volume and quality of work, greater responsibilities, more difficult conditions, or other relevant criteria applicable to anyone in that situation, you will not violate the principle of pay equity. On the other hand, if differences are based on subjective or discriminatory factors (for example, systematically offering raises only to young men because “otherwise they will leave“, while ignoring requests from women), then yes, you would have a problem.

Yes, this is a clear direction we are heading towards, both from the perspective of new regulations and as an HR best practice. Furthermore, with the adoption of Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency, this practice is no longer just optional—it will become a legal obligation in all EU member states and, through the commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova, at the national level by 2026 at the latest. The vague phrase “negotiable salary” will no longer be acceptable, as candidates must have a clear idea about the remuneration from the very beginning.

The Directive explicitly states that employers will have to inform candidates, either at the job posting stage or at the latest before the interview, about the proposed salary level or the applicable range for the respective position. This early transparency allows candidates to realistically evaluate the offer, avoid wasting time in non-transparent recruitment processes and, above all, negotiate on equal terms. It also contributes to preventing pay discrepancies generated by a person’s salary history.

And this is where a second important provision of the directive comes into play: the prohibition of requesting candidates’ salary history during the hiring process. In other words, employers can no longer ask what salary the person had previously, nor can they condition the current salary offer on this information. The purpose of this rule is to break the vicious cycle of salary undervaluation perpetuated from one job to another, especially in the case of women, who often end up accepting offers below the market level due to an already disadvantageous starting point.

Therefore, including the salary level in the job announcement not only anticipates future legal requirements but also offers multiple immediate benefits: it attracts more suitable candidates, increases trust in the organization, reduces unjustified pay gaps, and sends a clear signal of commitment to equity. In an increasingly competitive labor market, transparency becomes a strategic advantage—and proof that the organization is aligned with modern standards of responsibility and fairness.

First and foremost, it is important to specify that the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value applies to all employers, regardless of the size of the company. This means that all firms, whether they have 5 employees or 500, are obligated not to engage in pay discrimination and to apply objective and neutral criteria when setting salaries. It is not just large companies that are targeted by this rule, but absolutely all of them. What differs, however, are the administrative obligations—specifically, who must prepare and formally communicate reports on gender pay gaps.

According to the legislation in force, amended by Law No. 107/2022, the reporting obligation falls upon medium and large enterprises. And here comes the natural question: who is considered a medium or large enterprise? According to Law No. 179/2016, a medium enterprise has between 50 and 249 employees and an annual turnover of up to 50 million MDL, while a large enterprise has at least 250 employees or a turnover exceeding 50 million MDL. Therefore, if the company has fewer than 50 employees (for example, 10, 25, or even 49), it is not subject to this formal annual reporting obligation.

However, this does not mean that small firms or micro-enterprises are exempt from respecting the principle. They must still:

• refrain from applying unjustified remuneration differences between women and men;
• ensure employees’ access to information regarding salary criteria and average remuneration levels by position;
• avoid confidentiality clauses that prohibit employees from discussing salaries among themselves, especially when such discussions aim to verify equal treatment.

Even in a small company, if an employee suspects an unjustified pay gap between women and men in the same position or comparable positions, they have the exact same right to ask for explanations, request information, file complaints, or take legal action, just as they would in a large firm. Furthermore, although reporting is not mandatory for SMEs with fewer than 50 employees, pay transparency and fairness can become an advantage for these firms: it builds employee trust, reduces the risk of turnover or dissatisfaction, and projects a positive corporate image—especially as more and more public institutions and clients prefer to collaborate with employers who apply equity principles.

Therefore, yes—small firms are also subject to the principle of pay equity. Even if they are not required to report annually, they are obliged to ensure equal treatment and to be able to demonstrate that they do not apply unjustified differences. And if suspicions arise, the legislation provides the same level of protection and remedy as it does for any other employee in a large company.

According to new European legislative trends, asking this question is discouraged and will even be prohibited by law in the near future. The EU Pay Transparency Directive provides that employers are not allowed to request information from candidates regarding their salary history. The reason is that, by asking this, you risk perpetuating past discrimination. For example, if a woman was paid below market level at her previous job (possibly due to discrimination or poor negotiation) and you offer her a 10% increase based on that salary, she will still be underpaid relative to the correct level.

In Moldova, there is not yet an explicit prohibition on this question in the Labor Code, but given the commitment to adopt the European acquis, this provision is expected to be introduced. In your communication with a potential employee, focus the discussion on: salary expectations for the current role and, of course, communicate the budget you have allocated for the position (the salary range). This is a more transparent and equitable approach.

In the current climate, well-prepared candidates know the market value of their skills and prefer employers who set salaries based on the role and the added value, not on how low they can negotiate starting from a previous situation.

Therefore, the advice is to eliminate questions about past salary from forms or interviews. Focus on the role: define internally a fair salary pay for the position (based on responsibilities and the market) and see if the candidate’s expectations fall within this range. In this way, you align with the principle of equal remuneration, as you will pay based on the work, not on the person and their salary history. Additionally, you will avoid potential legal issues once the EU standards are transposed.

The concept of work of equal value extends the principle of equality beyond identical positions to different roles that hold a comparable value for the employer. In other words, two jobs may differ in nature but remain equivalent in importance, complexity, and requirements, meaning that those who hold them deserve similar remuneration. To determine this, objective and gender-neutral criteria are used. These criteria include: the required level of education and qualifications, the necessary skills and competencies, the effort exerted (both physical and mental), the responsibilities assumed, as well as the working conditions.

For example, if within an organization both the accountant position and the marketing specialist position require higher education, relevant experience, making critical decisions, and managing major resources, they could be considered of equal value. Even though the fields differ, the impact and complexity of the work can be equivalent. Conversely, if one of the jobs involved significantly higher requirements or responsibilities, a salary difference would be justified.

The concept of “work of equal value” emerged precisely to avoid situations where traditionally female-dominated occupations (for example, administrative assistant) are paid significantly less than male-dominated occupations of similar value (for example, maintenance technician), solely due to perceptions or tradition. Through job evaluation, companies can identify these equivalences and ensure they pay fairly for the work itself, rather than for the job title or the gender of the person performing it.

In Moldova, as in other countries, the salary package consists of several components: the base salary (also called tariff or position salary – the amount set per unit of time or work quota) to which supplementary payments and benefits are added. By “non-tariff component” of the salary, we essentially refer to the total elements of remuneration that are not part of the fixed base salary.

These include: allowances, add-ons, and indemnities (for special working conditions, seniority, overtime, shift work, etc.), performance prizes or bonuses, commissions, as well as benefits in kind (subscriptions, company car, meal vouchers, etc.).
These “non-tariff” elements can significantly influence the pay gaps between employees. For example, two employees may have the same base salary, but if one frequently receives substantial bonuses or allowances (perhaps due to access to more profitable projects, individual negotiation, or simply favoritism), then their total income will be higher. In many companies, these variable components are not as transparent as the base salary and may be granted discretionarily. Thus, even if on paper there seems to be equality regarding the tariff salary, real income differences can emerge through the non-tariff component.

A common example would be performance bonuses: if managers tend to grant higher premiums to male employees than to female employees (either because men request them more insistently or due to the stereotype that they are more “deserving“), an indirect pay gap is created. Similarly, unequal access to paid overtime – if, for instance, women avoid or are not offered overtime as often for various reasons, their monthly income will be lower compared to that of their colleagues.

Offering a higher salary to a new employee does not in itself constitute discrimination, as long as there are objective reasons that justify the difference. The principle of equal pay for equal work does not mean that all workers must be paid identically, but rather that any salary difference must be based on objective criteria, unrelated to gender.

In practice, if the newly hired specialist possesses rare skills, superior experience, or proven results, a higher salary can be justified. What is important is that these criteria are clear and documented. If the remuneration difference lacks a justification related to qualifications, responsibilities, or performance, then suspicions of unfair treatment could arise. In other words, the problem is not the different amount itself, but the reason behind it.

Ensure that you can explain why the new employee is remunerated more (for example, they bring new expertise or will occupy a more complex role) and that the difference is not based on subjective factors (such as gender, age, or personal relationships). A transparent and objective approach will protect the company from discrimination claims and maintain internal equity.

The first step is to conduct periodic internal analyses of the salary structure—essentially, an internal pay audit. For each position or comparable category of employees, compare the average salaries of different groups (specifically men vs. women, but also other factors, such as new vs. senior employees). According to the law, if you notice a difference of over 5% between the average salaries of men and women in the same position, you must investigate the causes. Ask yourself: are there objective factors that explain this gap? Objective factors may include: differences in seniority within the company or role (for example, perhaps men in that position have, on average, 5 years of experience while women have 2 years), differences in qualifications (perhaps some hold additional degrees or certifications), individual performance (do evaluations systematically show higher scores for one group?), or availability for overtime. These elements must be analyzed both individually and statistically.

If, after taking these factors into account, a portion of the difference remains that cannot be explained, that portion is considered unjustified. For example, if in a sales department men earn on average 10% more than women, and after adjusting the difference for work seniority there is still approximately 6% left unexplained, then that 6% may indicate an issue that needs to be analyzed. A clear sign of potential direct discrimination is when you discover individual cases: the same position, the same experience and qualifications, but a significant salary difference without justification. For instance, two programmers with 3 years of experience and a similar competence level (according to evaluations)—if one (a man) has a salary that is 1,000 MDL higher than the other (a woman) and there is no other reason (it is not a matter of different performance, different roles, etc.), then we are looking at an inequity that could be discriminatory.

It is important to use a clear job evaluation and performance system. If you have well-defined salary bands and promotion criteria, it will be easier to see where everyone stands and if anyone has been placed incorrectly. Use objective criteria (e.g., skills, effort, responsibilities, working conditions) to justify differences. Any difference that does not align with these criteria must be treated as a red flag and requires analysis. Additionally, involve employee representatives or an external evaluation expert for the sake of objectivity. Sometimes it is difficult to see all the nuances from within. An external pay equity audit can identify hidden imbalances (for example, perhaps lower salaries were systematically offered to women upon hiring for comparable roles).

This question touches upon one of the most subtle and widespread forms of inequity in the workplace: the situation where base salaries are equal for men and women holding the same position, but differences arise in the total monthly income due to variable components—bonuses, commissions, overtime, informal payments, or access to special projects. Although at first glance these differences seem to reflect only individual merit, in practice they can hide systematic imbalances between men and women, especially when there are no clear rules, transparent criteria, and equal access to the opportunities that generate additional income. In such a context, it is essential to analyze not only what is paid, but also to whom, how, and under what conditions these components of remuneration are granted.

If, for example, overtime or commission-based projects take place outside regular working hours—in the evenings, on weekends, or unannounced—they indirectly become less accessible to employees with family responsibilities. In the context of the Republic of Moldova, where reality shows that caregiving duties (children, the elderly, household) fall overwhelmingly on women, this overtime becomes de facto inaccessible to a significant portion of female employees. This is not because they are unwilling or incapable, but because the organization of work fails to account for everyone’s life realities. Furthermore, access to projects, clients, or activities that generate additional income is often managed informally, through networking, managerial preferences, or assumptions about “availability” or “potential.”

Consequently, male employees may be selected more frequently for high-visibility, high-reward tasks, while women are allocated to routine or administratively invisible tasks. Even if this distribution is unintended, it has concrete effects: incomes rise where there is real access to opportunities, and the lack of such access generates gaps that, accumulated over time, turn into a clear pay differential. Another critical aspect is the lack of transparency and written rules. If the granting of bonuses, premiums, or commissions is left to the discretion of the direct manager, without a clear methodology, without agreed performance indicators, and without transparent communication, then unequal treatment becomes possible—and its effect is seen especially on groups that, historic

The term “pay gap” is often associated with gender differences; however, wage inequalities can exist between any employees, even of the same gender, when individuals in similar situations (same position, equivalent responsibilities) are remunerated differently without clear reasons. For instance, two men holding the same position may have different salaries if one negotiated a higher wage upon hiring or if the employer practices discretionary pricing. Situations of this kind can occur even in the absence of any gender-based discrimination, being linked to other factors such as experience, performance, qualifications, or even managerial favoritism.

Pay equity legislation essentially covers the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, regardless of any personal criteria (gender, age, origin, disability, etc.). Therefore, if two employees (regardless of gender) perform the same work, large pay differences raise questions. Sometimes these can be justified—for example, one holds an additional certification or achieves better results. Other times, however, they can be the result of unequal salary negotiations or the lack of clear salary bands, which creates internal inequity.
A common example is the situation where, in the absence of transparency, two employees hired at different times end up with different salaries simply because the labor market dictated different wage levels at the moment of hiring. Additionally, discrimination based on other criteria (for example, nepotism—favoring someone based on kinship—or regional discrimination) can lead to two similar employees being paid differently. In conclusion, although public discussion often focuses on the gender gap, pay equity aims to eliminate all unjustified differences between employees in comparable conditions. Tools such as objective job evaluation and pay transparency help identify and correct not only gender differences, but also those affecting individuals of the same gender, thereby ensuring equity for all.