Malta belongs to the small group of Member States that transposed the EU Pay Transparency Directive on time.  

Malta’s regulations broadly follow the Directive’s framework but introduce notable deviations. In particular, they set shorter and more complex deadlines for employers responding to employee pay information requests. 

In this article, we summarise some of the key features of Malta’s new framework that employers need to be aware of. 

• Pay transparency obligations are, for the most part, live: The majority of the provisions in the regulations took effect on 5 June 2026 without a transitional period. Most employers are therefore subject to obligations around pay categorisation, recruitment transparency and the employees’ right to pay information. There are, however, some exceptions where transitional provisions apply, namely in the context of collective agreements. These are explored further below and limit enforcement in certain situations.  

• Pay information response times are extremely tight: Employers must respond to employee requests for pay information within just eight calendar (rather than working) days. Employees can then use a further request mechanism described below. This is significantly shorter than the two months allowed under the Pay Transparency Directive. Failure to provide information within 45 days of the initial request is a criminal offence. 

• Worker representatives: These include union representatives, elected representatives or ‘other representative acting…in defence of that worker’s interests.’ This definition could widen the scope for unions to secure greater representation. 

• Gender pay gap reporting begins in 2027: Employers with over 150 employees must submit their first pay gap report by 7 June 2027. The report must cover the period from 1 January to 31 December 2026. Employers must submit reports within 14 working days of the end of the relevant period. 
• Penalties are modest, but criminal liability applies: Fines range from EUR 2,500 to EUR 7,000 and are not linked to turnover or payroll. However, the 45-day criminal liability for failing to respond to pay information requests introduces a notable enforcement risk. 

Malta’s regulations align with the Pay Transparency Directive when it comes to worker categorisation.  

When grouping workers performing the same work or work of equal value, employers must consider skills, effort, responsibility, working conditions and other job–related factors. Employers must also agree objective gender-neutral criteria for assessing the value of work with worker representatives, where they exist. 

Malta’s regulations require employers to provide applicants with information about initial pay or pay ranges, based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, before the conclusion of the recruitment process. Employers must also share relevant collective agreement provisions where applicable.  

The Pay Transparency Directive encourages employers to disclose this information earlier in the process, for example in a published job vacancy notice or before the job interview. Malta’s regulations, however, do not reference those earlier stages. Instead, they opt for a later deadline of ‘prior to the conclusion of the recruitment process’. This may extend to disclosure after interview, provided it is given early enough to enable a genuine and informed negotiation on pay. 

Otherwise, and aligning with the Pay Transparency Directive, employers cannot ask applicants about current or previous pay history. They must also use gender-neutral job advertisements and titles. 

Employers must adopt and maintain written policies or criteria setting out the objective, gender-neutral criteria used to determine pay, pay levels and pay progression. Workers must have access to these policies ‘at all times’. This requirement appears more prescriptive than the Directive’s requirement that employers merely make the criteria ‘easily accessible’. 

Malta creates a tiered approach for smaller employers. Employers with fewer than 50 workers are exempt from pay progression requirements. However, employers with 25 to 49 workers must still document their pay criteria, levels and progression internally. Employers with fewer than 25 workers remain bound by equal pay principles but have no documentation obligations. 

One of the most striking features of Malta’s transposition is the timeline for responding to employee requests for pay information.  

Workers have the right to request, and receive information in writing, on: 

• their individual pay level; and  

• the average pay levels, broken down by sex, for categories of workers performing the same work or work of equal value.  

Employers have just eight calendar days to respond to an employee request. The Directive allows two months. Malta’s dramatically shorter deadline represents significant ‘gold-plating’ that will require employers to maintain readily accessible pay data at all times.

If the employer misses that deadline, an employee representative may submit a further request within 12 calendar days from the expiry of the eight-day period. Employers then have another eight calendar days – so up to 28 calendar days - to respond. If the employer still fails to respond, the worker may escalate through the Equality Body. If information is not provided within 45 calendar days from the date of the worker’s initial request, this constitutes a criminal offence. 

For requests made in 2026, employers need only provide information about pay for 2026. This offers some transitional relief. 

Employers must also inform workers annually of their right to request pay information and the steps needed to exercise it. 

Malta’s approach to pay disclosure is narrower than the Pay Transparency Directive’s. The Directive prohibits restrictions on workers disclosing their pay ‘for the purpose of the enforcement of the principle of equal pay’ and requires Member States to put in place measures prohibiting contractual terms that restrict such disclosure. 

Malta’s regulations only permit disclosure to ‘the relevant authorities or to the employees’ representatives or the chosen union’. This limits the recipients of disclosure compared to the Directive, which imposes no such restriction. Malta’s regulations also do not expressly prohibit contractual terms restricting pay disclosure. 

When disclosure would identify an individual worker’s pay, only employee representatives, the Equality Body and the Monitoring Body may access it. The Directive makes this optional for Member States, but Malta has made it mandatory, which is a more protective approach for individual privacy. 

Malta’s reporting obligations closely track the Pay Transparency Directive’s framework. 

• 250+ workers: report by 7 June 2027, then annually. 

• 150 to 249 workers: report by 7 June 2027, then every three years. 

• 100 to 149 workers: report by 7 June 2031, then every three years. 

• Fewer than 100 workers: voluntary reporting only. 

Malta also specifies the reference periods for the first reports, such as 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026. The Pay Transparency Directive does not specify these periods. 

A notable additional requirement is also the 14-working-day deadline for submitting reports after the end of the relevant yearly period, meaning 14 working days from the end of June of the reporting year. 

The employer’s management must confirm the accuracy of pay gap reports after consulting employee representatives. Those representatives must also have access to the methodologies used. 

Employers must conduct a joint pay assessment in consultation with employees’ representatives when: 

• a pay gap report reveals a difference of at least 5% between female and male workers in any category; and  

• the employer has not justified or remedied that difference within six months. 

Malta introduces a qualitative element not found in the Pay Transparency Directive. Employers must have ‘satisfactorily’ justified the difference. This adds a subjective assessment that could raise questions about its application in practice. 

Where disagreements arise over the conduct of a joint pay assessment or the implementation of remedial measures, either party may request the Monitoring Body to attend a conciliation meeting. If conciliation fails, the matter is referred to the Industrial Tribunal. This structured dispute resolution mechanism has no express counterpart in the Pay Transparency Directive. 

Malta sets fixed penalties. General breaches attract fines of EUR 2,500 to EUR 5,000. Offences involving equal pay discrimination attract fines of EUR 5,000 to EUR 7,000. Repeat infringements attract more severe penalties within those ranges. 

Malta does not link these amounts to turnover or payroll. The Pay Transparency Directive contemplates such links. Larger employers may consider these fines to be too low to deter non-compliance. The European Commission may therefore scrutinise them. 

Workers may claim lost pay and full compensation before the Industrial Tribunal. Compensation may cover back pay, bonuses, payments in kind, lost opportunities, non-material damage and damage from intersectional discrimination. However, workers may recover damages exceeding lost pay only where discrimination was carried out ‘wilfully and for vexatious reasons’. This restriction may conflict with the Pay Transparency Directive’s express prohibition on prior upper limits to compensation. 

Malta’s regulations also impose a higher evidential threshold for triggering the reversal of the burden of proof. Workers must bring ‘initial proof…by reference to tangible and established facts’. By contrast, the Pay Transparency Directive requires only that a claimant ‘establish… facts from which it may be presumed’ that discrimination has occurred.

While most of the new requirements and rights are already in effect, the regulations do contain two sets of transitional provisions that limit enforcement while existing collective agreements remain in force.  

Firstly, this applies to workers who are seconded or supplied to a government or government-owned body following a closure of any other government or government-owned body, where their employment is subject to a collective agreement that was in force when the regulations came into effect (i.e. on 5 June 2026). In those circumstances, they cannot issue proceedings under Malta’s new regulations in relation to differences in pay for equal work or work of equal value.  

This restriction applies only where the claim relates solely to the body to which they were seconded or supplied following a closure of any other government or government-owned body. It applies for as long as the relevant collective agreement remains in force. 

The provision also extends to workers employed directly by the relevant body to which the employee has been seconded or supplied. 

Secondly, the regulations also include a broader transitional measure that applies to collective agreements more generally. Any collective agreement in force as of 5 June 2026 is deemed to be valid and compliant with the regulations’ requirements. As a result, and while that collective agreement remains in force, no party may bring an action against the employer for an alleged breach of the regulations arising from the terms of the agreement.  

However, and despite this general protection, the regulations preserve the right to bring equal pay claims in one important respect. Workers may still pursue claims for differences in pay for equal work or work of equal value where those differences result from, or are attributable to, the collective agreement itself.  

The precise scope of this carve-out is not entirely clear from the drafting. On one reading, it preserves an employee’s ability to challenge pay disparities even when the employer benefits from the general collective agreement protection. However, further guidance, whether through judicial interpretation or regulatory clarification, is required. In the meantime, employers may want to identify in their existing collective agreements any provisions that may give rise to equal pay claims under this exception. Once negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement commence, the parties should ensure that the agreement is updated to reflect the obligations arising under the regulations. 

Malta has not transposed Article 24 of the Directive on equal pay in public contracts and concessions. Notably: 

• public contract operators are not required to comply with equal pay obligations; 

• there is no provision for penalties or termination conditions in public contracts; 

• there is no provision for excluding employers with a pay gap above 5% from public procurement. 

Malta had already partially transposed the Directive through rules that took effect on 27 August 2025. The new regulations outlined above now implement the Directive more comprehensively. However, Malta has not yet repealed the earlier rules. This overlap creates uncertainty about how employers should apply overlapping obligations in practice. 

With the regulations already in force, employers with operations in Malta should act now to assess their readiness and address any compliance gaps. In particular, they should take the following actions: 

• Audit pay data systems: The eight-day response deadline means employers need pay information readily accessible at all times. Employers should review their current data infrastructure and ensure they can generate the required information quickly. 

• Review recruitment processes: Employers must ensure job advertisements are gender-neutral, pay ranges are disclosed before the end of the recruitment process, and salary history questions have been removed from all hiring materials. 

• Prepare for pay gap reporting: For employers employing 100 or more workers in Malta, they should begin preparing the data and processes needed to submit their first report by the relevant deadline. 

• Establish or review pay categorisation: Use objective, gender-neutral criteria to categorise workers, involving employees’ representatives where they exist. 

• Put data retention processes in place: Malta requires a minimum five-year retention period for pay information data, which has no counterpart in the Pay Transparency Directive. 

• Brief legal and HR teams: The combination of tight deadlines, criminal liability provisions and the immediate entry into force of most of the provisions of the regulations in June means that awareness and preparedness across the organisation are essential.