By resolution dated April 29, 2026, Case No. 21 Cdo 606/2026, the Supreme Court ruled on another dispute concerning equal pay among employees of Česká pošta (Czech Post). The claimant, a counter employee at a smaller branch outside Prague, sought damages of CZK 81,374.35, arguing that she received a lower base tariff wage than employees in Prague branches assigned to the identical job model description and the same tariff grade. The court of first instance dismissed the action, the appellate court affirmed the decision, and the Supreme Court rejected the claimant’s appellate review as inadmissible.
Under Section 110(1) of the Czech Labour Code, employees working for the same employer are entitled to equal wage, salary, or remuneration under an agreement for the same work or for work of equal value. However, the assessment of work comparability is not based on a formal identity of job classification. Provisions of Section 110(2) to (5) of the Labour Code require a comparative analysis of:
- Complexity, responsibility, and arduousness of the work
- Working conditions
- Work performance and work results
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the cumulative nature of these criteria: if the work is not comparable under even a single criterion, it does not constitute the same work or work of equal value in relation to the comparator employee.
The core significance of the decision therefore lies in its emphasis on a substantive assessment of the work actually performed, rather than relying solely on the formal job or tariff classification of the employee. Although the claimant and the comparator employees shared the same agreed type of work, job model description, and tariff grade, the appellate court identified a fundamental difference in the volume of postal transactions processed, which directly impacted the arduousness, performance, and results of the work. Consequently, identical tariff or organizational classification serves merely as an indication of comparability, not as self-sufficient proof that employees perform the same work or work of equal value.
This conclusion aligns with existing Supreme Court case law interpreting Section 110 of the Labour Code. Case law has long established that assessing pay equality requires evaluating the specific conditions under which work is performed, rather than its formal title alone. At the same time, this ruling does not constitute a departure from earlier precedent regarding regional pay differentials. The mere fact that an employee performs work in a region with a higher cost of living or different labor market conditions is not a statutory criterion under Section 110 of the Labour Code. However, wage differentials can be justified by proven variations in the actual content, intensity, arduousness, or results of the work performed.
A similar substantive approach to work comparability is established under European Union law. In Brunnhofer (Case C‑381/99), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that placing employees in the same job or tariff category may constitute a relevant factor, but is insufficient on its own to conclude that they perform the same work or work of equal value. The decisive factors must be the concrete nature of the activities performed, the demands placed on employees, and the conditions under which the work is carried out. Although EU provisions on the equal pay principle primarily stem from gender equality under Article 157 TFEU, these conclusions provide key interpretive guidance for evaluating work comparability under Czech labor law.
From a practical perspective, the ruling underscores the importance of objective and verifiable criteria for wage differentiation. Employers must be able to demonstrate that any pay variations among employees in similar positions derive from factors relevant under Section 110 of the Labour Code, rather than merely organizational assignment or geographical location. For employees, the ruling confirms that matching job titles, types of work, or tariff grades are insufficient on their own to succeed in an equal pay claim. The decisive factor remains a direct comparison of actual job content and operational conditions. Resolution Case No. 21 Cdo 606/2026 thus does not alter the fundamental interpretation of Section 110 of the Labour Code, but provides significant clarification for cases where formally identical positions differ in factual difficulty or work intensity.
This text was translated by AI.
