5. Case law from the Nordic countries

This chapter briefly summarises the case law in which provisions on equal pay for equal work or work of equal value have been examined. The presentation is based on a selection with particular focus on decisions from the last five or ten years and on decisions in which the concept of work of equal value has been assessed. At the same time, decisions from further back in time are also of interest. One reason is that in some countries, case law relating to the principle of equal pay from the last ten years is extremely limited. This is the case in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.

Another reason is that some issues concerning the practical application of the principle of equal pay have been clarified in the past. The Court of Justice of the EU’s landmark judgement from the early nineties, C-400/93 Royal Copenhagen, is one such example .

One limitation is that this report does not provide an in-depth description of the forum rules in the respective countries when equal pay legislation is examined. As an example of the complexity, in Denmark there are three possible avenues that can be pursued: general courts, with Landsret (the High Court) as the court of first instance; Ligebehandlingsnævnet (the Board of Equal Treatment) and Faglig Voldgift (Labour Arbitration). A common denominator for the case law presented is that it almost exclusively concerns disputes in which an employee has claimed discrimination or disadvantage combined with a claim for compensation. Only in Sweden are rulings available linked to proactive legislation, i.e. the provisions on pay surveys. In these cases, the pay setting of individuals is not subject to review. What is examined, in simple terms, is whether the employer has conducted a pay survey or if certain steps in the pay survey process have been missed.

Ligebehandlingsnævnet (The Board of Equal Treatment) is an administrative body to which individuals can apply for compensation in cases of alleged discrimination based on nine different grounds of discrimination. In 2019–2020, about 300 cases were decided per year. Since then, the number of cases has risen to over 400 per year. These cases concern all areas of society covered by discrimination legislation. Most decisions in recent times have been linked to the discrimination ground of disability. One advantage of turning to the Board is that no fees need to be paid. A limitation is that the Board bases its decisions only on written submissions. In the case that testimony is considered necessary, the applicant must turn to civil courts. The Board’s database contains 44 cases registered between 2009 and 2023 that are related to the keyword ligeløn (equal pay). Of these cases, only two concern arbejde af samme værdi (work of equal value). In a decision dated 10 December 2014, the plaintiff, who was employed in a shoemaking company, got no support that the comparator’s job was work of equal value. In a decision dated 8 October 2014, a female salesperson was found to have failed to provide sufficient evidence that she performed work of equal value compared to a male colleague.

Overall, there are very few decisions in Denmark that can be said to have led to clarification of the concept of work of equal value. The following is a sample:

One case that has been of fundamental importance in clarifying the meaning of the concept of work of equal value is C-400/93 Royal Copenhagen. In clause 28, the Court of Justice of the EU stated that if the grounds for setting pay appear unclear, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to explain the differentials in pay. The case in question concerned a comparison of a workers’ collective dominated by women  with a workers’ collective dominated by men. When the pay of these groups was compared, it was on the basis of a calculated average pay. However, it was impossible to demonstrate which factors had been decisive in determining the tariffs or the bases for calculating the variable part of the pay. Based on the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU, the case was subsequently decided by the national court, Faglig Voldgift 19 mars 1996 (Labour Arbitration 19 March 1996). Labour Arbitration is an arbitration procedure for disputes over the meaning of collective agreements.

Another decision made by Labour Arbitration, dated 9 April 1997, concerned a comparison between two categories of workers on Helsingør-Helsingborg overfarten (Elsinore ferry). The case examined whether all work covered by the collective agreement for gastronomgruppen (the gastronomy group) constituted work of equal value. The case compared the work of a smørrebrødsjomfru (sandwich maker), work dominated by women, with the work of a cook preparing hot dishes, work dominated by men. An overall assessment showed that the knowledge, skills and responsibility requirements were higher for the cooks, and that only some of the women working as sandwich makers had sufficient qualifications to perform the duties of a cook.

In a decision by Labour Arbitration on 19 November 2013, it was found that unpaid breakfast breaks in certain jobs dominated by women constituted pay discrimination compared to paid breaks for employees in jobs dominated by men.

On 9 February 2024, a decision was reached by Labour Arbitration concerning the company Novozymes, which has 3,000 employees in Denmark. The comparison concerned the jobs of laboratory assistant (a position dominated by women) and technician (a position dominated by men). Both categories of workers are involved in the production of enzymes and both categories of workers handle biomass in this context. The court found that the job of technician required a greater degree of autonomy and responsibility than the job of laboratory assistant. As the jobs could not be considered of equal value, this provided a factual explanation for an average pay differential of 12–16 per cent between these categories of workers.

The Finnish Non-Discrimination Ombudsman does not have information on the number of discrimination cases heard by Finnish courts each year. The judgements of lower courts are not digitally searchable. According to the Finnish Ombudsman for Equality, Tasa-arvo, the following equal pay cases were heard in Finnish courts between 2015 and 2024.

The case at the District Court of South West Finland on 19 December 2019 concerned comparisons of managerial pay within a municipality. In an initial judgement, the court found that a female social manager performed work of equal value to a male culture manager. Furthermore, it was found that the pay of the social manager and the pay of the culture manager were based on different collective agreements. It follows from the judgement that pay differentials due to the provisions of collective agreements do not in themselves constitute acceptable grounds for pay differentials. The pay of the culture manager, who also worked as a teacher, was affected by the working time measure for teachers. As a result, he received certain overtime payments while performing his duties as culture manager. The court found that the pay differential was justified by the specific nature of the teaching post and the difference in the professional experience of the two managers. With regard to the second comparison, with the municipal director, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been pay discrimination. 

On 5 May 2022,the Administrative Court of Northern Finland heard a case concerning the remuneration of managers in Rovaniemi Municipality. A woman, holding the position of development manager, compared her pay with that of two other managers within the municipality, the security manager and the culture manager. The court found that the difference in the nature of the duties and responsibilities was significant enough that there was no comparable situation, i.e. the work was neither equal nor of equal value.

A decision of 15 January 2024 concerned a woman who had worked for the fire department of Helsinki since 2010, most recently as a senior safety trainer. In this case, a pay differential was examined in relation to male employees in the roles of senior fire inspector and senior control planner. The comparators were part of the same work team, in which the applicant was the only woman. Her pay was, according to the collective agreement, in a different category to the men’s pay. After reviewing extensive evidence regarding the content and requirements of the various jobs, the district court found that the jobs were of equal value. The fact that the pay was the result of collective agreements did not constitute acceptable grounds to justify the pay differential. The employer was thus found to have been guilty of pay discrimination.

On 5 February 2024 the Supreme Court issued a ruling, HD 2024:9. It addressed the issue of time frames for adjusting established pay inequalities between first-line nurses performing equal work or work of equal value between 2014 and 2019. The court found that the employer had taken steps in 2016-2019 to begin eliminating the gender pay differentials from 2019. Thus, the hospital district had not acted in breach of the requirement of impartial treatment under Chapter 2, § 2(1) of the Employment Contracts Act.

Three decisions from the early 2000s addressed the issue of the requirement of proof in an equal pay dispute, specifically the burden of proof shifting to the defendant. In case TT:2002-10, the Labour Court held that it was sufficient for the applicant to show that their pay was lower than that of the comparator. In two subsequent decisions, the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgement 2005:51 from 29 July 2005 and the Supreme Court’s judgement KKO 2009:78 of 7 May 2009, the applicant did not succeed in establishing the existence of gender discrimination. The reason was that there were also men in the allegedly underpaid pay category to which the applicant (a woman) belonged.

In recent years, Iceland’s Equality Complaints Committee has decided over 20 discrimination cases per year. These cases cover all grounds of discrimination and areas of society covered by the prohibition of discrimination.

In addition to the Equality Act, Act (86/2018) on Equal Treatment on the Labour Market covers 10 grounds of discrimination.

Between 2017 and 2023, ten equal pay cases were decided.

Cases about equal pay and pay equity 2017-2023 from the Equality Complaints Committee in Iceland.

 In seven of these, the issue of equal pay for work of equal value was examined. In some of the cases, the comparators were found not to be performing work of equal value. For example, in one case, the applicant, who was a male employee of the Food and Veterinary Authority, was found to be performing less qualified tasks than the female comparator (case 2/2022). The same was true in two cases involving employees with supervisory positions in the health sector (regional directors) but with different underlying training, i.e. managers who were basically either nurses or doctors (cases 5/2016, 6/2016 and 5/2018). In another case, a male applicant was unsuccessful in his claim because it was judged that work experience and level of education justified the pay differential between him and the female comparator (case 10/2017). In one case in which the applicant was successful, the decision was based on an employer’s failure to explain pay differentials between a female manager and two male managers on the basis of objectively applied pay criteria (case 15/2021). In case 3/2017, deficiencies in the employer’s documentation resulted in the court ruling in favour of a woman. In case 5/2017, the employer’s argument that a woman worked part time and a man full time was not sufficient to justify a disputed pay differential.

A number of older cases from the general courts are also considered significant in this context. The Supreme Court’s judgement 255/1996 describes a comparison between a woman and a man who both worked as technicians at the national radio station RÚV. They worked under different collective agreements, which the court did not accept as an explanation for the pay differentials between them. Two further cases decided by the Supreme Court concerned the town of Akureyri. Case 11/2000 concerned a comparison between two civil servants responsible for gender equality and education and for entrepreneurship. In this case too, the pay conditions of the woman and the man were determined by different collective agreements. Although an initial job evaluation had given the man a higher score, the court ultimately concluded that the woman had been discriminated against in terms of pay. Case 258/2004 compared a woman who was a social services manager with a man who was employed as a technician. In this case too, the initial job evaluation had given the man a higher score than the woman. Furthermore, the employer had cited “market reasons” as an additional explanation for the pay differential. In its overall assessment, the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s arguments and deemed the work to be of equal value.

For a number of years, Diskrimineringsnemnda (the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal) has been the main body that decides on cases of discrimination and harassment related to all grounds of discrimination.

The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act lists 10 grounds for discrimination. The Tribunal also examines issues of discrimination related to political opinion or trade union membership.

The Tribunal’s website includes 2,630 searchable cases from 2018 onwards. The total number of cases related to working life during this period was just over 1,100. Of these, 468 were related to gender, with 45 cases concerning lik lønn for arbeid av lik verdi (equal pay for work of equal value).

The search was conducted on 8 March 2024.

On the same website, it is possible to search for older cases, when the Tribunal operated with a different name and composition. From 2006 to 2017, a further 44 cases on equal pay issues can be found, of which 23 concern work of equal value.

The first major ruling pertaining to the concept of work of equal value was handed down by the Labour Court of Norway on 28 September 1990, which found that the work of a bioengineer was of equal value to that of other types of engineers in the municipality. The Court thus overturned the collective agreements concluded in so far as they were found to be discriminatory on the grounds of sex.

In Norwegian equal pay disputes, employers’ references to market forces as a factual basis to explain alleged gender pay differentials have been subject to scrutiny on a number of occasions. The reference to the concept of market forces can be seen as nearly synonymous with difficulties in retaining and recruiting staff. Brief reference is made here to four cases that were examined by the Klagenemnda for likestilling (LKN; Complaints Board for Equality) and Likestillings- og diskrimineringsnemnda (LDN; the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud) between 2001 and 2009.

For more detailed documentation, see memorandum Marknadsargumentet i norsk rättspraxis 2001–2009 (The market argument in Norwegian case law 2001-2009).

Case LKN 2001-2 concerned a pay comparison between a nurse and an engineer employed in a hospital. The majority of the Tribunal found that a general reference to recruitment difficulties was not sufficient to justify the pay differentials in question. The employer had not been able to provide written documentation that concretely substantiated the argument.

Case LKN 2002-5 concerned a comparison in a municipality between three female aktivitører (labourers) and a male craftsman. The decision states that although the market pay for craftsmen is generally higher than for labourers, the municipality was not able to provide evidence that the man’s pay level, which was above pay level 23, had been decisive in or necessary for successful recruitment. It turned out that two other craftsmen with similar skills had applied for the job. The advert had stated that the pay would correspond to pay level 23. 

Case LDN 23/2008 concerned a comparison between two nurses with supervisory responsibilities and four engineers who had supervisory or coordinating roles in a hospital. After a detailed examination of the ‘market considerations’, the Tribunal found that the pay differentials were objectively justified. 

Case LDN 42/2009 concerned pay comparisons of a female supervisor of a municipal school and leisure activities (SFO) and five male supervisors in a technical administration. The pay had been determined on the basis of different collective agreements. The majority of the Tribunal found that the work was of equal value. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove that the relatively higher pay level in the technical department was an effective means of recruiting or retaining staff.

Finally, brief summaries of four decisions from recent years are provided. A decision on 19 May 2020 by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal concerned a pay comparison between a woman and a man working as førsteamanuensis (associate professors) at one of the country’s universities. The Tribunal never took a clear position on whether the work was equal or of equal value. In any case, the applicant was able to present facts that gave reason to presume that she had been discriminated against. Thus, the burden of proof shifted to the employer. The Tribunal stated the following with reference to the wording in the preface of the Discrimination Act: “In order to ensure that the right to equal pay is not undermined, the employer shall be required to provide counter-evidence or justification in these cases. It should not be sufficient to merely refer to the fact that market value, for example, has been emphasised in the pay determination. Here, it must be established, among other things, that high pay was necessary to recruit or retain the employee(s) and that the same considerations cannot be applied to the person(s) being compared with.” The employer’s evidence, which consisted of a general reference to a pressurised recruitment situation and a desire to fill the position quickly, did not meet this requirement. 

The decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal from 15 February 2021 concerned the pay of doctors in a prison. As in the decision of 19 May 2020, the Tribunal never took a position on whether it was equal work or work of equal value. The applicant, who was a woman, had in any case managed to establish that the pay setting was discriminatory in relation to two male colleagues. In this case too, the employer countered that the recruitment situation when the male doctors were appointed had been pressured and that there had been difficulties in finding doctors with the right skills. As no further evidence was presented to substantiate the recruitment difficulties, the Tribunal concluded that there was pay discrimination. 

In a decision by the Tribunal on 5 March 2021, the question of whether female and male kantineledere (canteen managers) of a private employer performed work of equal value was considered. The central issue was that the different canteens were categorised differently, as either ‘standard’ or ‘premium’. After an overall assessment, the Tribunal found that the work was not of equal value.

A judgement by the Oslo District Court on 15 June 2023 concerned a woman working in financial analysis in a senior position at Norges Bank. The woman claimed that she performed tasks of equal value compared to 12 male colleagues. In this context, she claimed retroactive pay compensation for 2012–2022 of more than NOK 16 million. A review found that nine of her colleagues had “investment responsibilities” and that three had no such responsibility. The court concluded that the woman’s work was not of equal value compared to the nine colleagues who had “investment responsibilities”. As for the other three colleagues, the court found that the woman had performed duties of equal value to them for parts of the ten-year period. The men’s higher salaries could be explained by the pay criteria applied by the bank, which were found to be gender-neutral. The bank had therefore not been guilty of pay discrimination.

Disputes about discrimination related to the seven grounds of discrimination in the legislation are, in principle, handled in two different types of courts. If an employee is represented by a trade union, the dispute is referred, after negotiations at local and central level, to the Labour Court. If the employee is not represented by a trade union, the case is referred to the district court, i.e. a general court, in the first instance and the Labour Court in the final instance. Discrimination disputes concerning areas of society other than working life are heard in general courts. In recent years, 15-20 discrimination cases per year have been decided in the general courts. The number of cases that reach the Labour Court has been three to four per year. In the last ten years, no equal pay cases have been heard.

The concept of work of equal value or similar work has been examined on seven occasions by the Labour Court: AD 1995 No. 158 Kumla Municipality, AD 1996 No. 41 Örebro County Council I, AD 1996 No. 79 Karlskoga Municipality, AD 2001 No. 13 Örebro County Council II, AD 2001 No. 51 County Administrative Board of Skåne, AD 2001 No. 76 Stockholm County Council and AD 2013 No. 64 Gryning Vård AB.

In AD 1995 No. 158 and AD 1996 No. 79 the work was ‘similar’, and the court never took a position on whether it was equal work or work of equal value . In practice, both cases were comparisons of equal work, one pertaining to two economists in Kumla Municipality and one pertaining to two social workers with managerial positions in Karlskoga Municipality. These were the only two cases in which applicants were successful and received compensation in pay discrimination disputes.

The question of comparability of two completely different jobs was raised in two cases pertaining to Örebro County Council. In AD 1996 No. 41 the Labour Court did not want to preclude the possibility of using systematic job evaluation  to demonstrate the potential equal value of different jobs, such as midwife and clinical engineer. However, the Labour Court rejected the evaluation method used by the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman (JämO). In AD 2001 No. 13 the Labour Court concluded that the work of midwives and clinical engineers was of equal value. The starting point was an overall assessment based on the criteria of “knowledge and ability, responsibility, effort and working conditions ”.

A near-identical judgement was reached in AD 2001 No. 76. The Labour Court found that an intensive care nurse and a medical engineer had work tasks of equal value. The two 2001 rulings thus represented a partial success for the applicant in that the Labour Court accepted the principle of comparability of two completely different jobs. In AD 2001 No. 51 there was no dispute that the social counsellors being compared performed work of at least equal value.

In all cases concerning work of equal value, the Labour Court accepted rebuttal evidence from the employer at a later stage of the review, pertaining to market factors influencing the salaries of nurses and medical technicians (AD 2001 No. 51 and AD 2001 No. 76), the significance of previous pay determinations in the form of collective agreements (AD 2001 No. 13 and AD 2013 No. 64), different dates for pay reviews (AD 2001 No. 51) or the unique skills of a specific individual (AD 2013 No. 64).

The Equality Board’s case 1–97, Scania CV AB, pertained indirectly to the concept of work of equal value and the related need for pay surveys across agreements. At the centre of the dispute was the issue of what information employee representatives could demand during the consultation on which the provisions were based. The Board’s decision went against the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and meant that, in connection with a pay survey, trade union representatives were only deemed to have the right to scrutinise the pay of their own members. The legal situation was subsequently changed by a legislative amendment in 2001. This made it clear that a pay survey and analysis should be carried out in collaboration, across the boundaries of collective agreements, and cover all employees regardless of union affiliation.

In case 2–08 Holmen Paper the Board against Discrimination followed a strict interpretation of the law and ignored previous preparatory works and the Court of Justice of the EU’s interpretation of the principle of equal pay in judgement 157/86 Murphy.

The case had been initiated by the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and was settled two years later, 2010-05-06 Ä 1-09.

Following from this judgement, if there is a group with lower work requirements but which nevertheless has a higher pay level, such a group should also be included in the comparison and analysis. Based on the judgement made in the case of Murphy, cls. 9–12, it follows that a contrary interpretation would mean that the principle of equal pay would be deprived of its proper effect and content. The requirements for conducting an analysis in the case of work of equal value were subsequently clarified by a legislative amendment in 2017.

The issue of identification and categorisation of equal work and work of equal value was at the heart of a case decided in 2016, brought by Försvarsförbundet (Union of the Swedish Defence Forces). The union had demanded that categorisation be done on the basis of a uniform standard applied to all employees. The Board agreed with the union’s arguments and ordered the employer to carry out a proper pay survey within four months, subject to a conditional fine of SEK 2 million.

The rulings in the Scania CV AB and Holmen Paper cases have had an impact on subsequent legislative changes linked to the concept of work of equal value.

Firstly, some general reflections on the number of judicial rulings. This is followed by a discussion of references to ‘the market’ or the wording of collective agreements as a factual basis for pay differentials.

The table below provides approximate figures for each country. The figures from Denmark, Iceland and Norway relate only to ‘Board’ decisions. The Swedish figures relate to general courts and the Labour Court. There is no data from Finland on the number of discrimination cases heard annually by the courts. The table shows the number of cases first in absolute numbers and then weighted in relation to the population. In January 2022, Iceland had a population of about 376,000 people. The figures for Denmark, Finland and Norway were between just over 5.4 and 5.8 million. Sweden had 10.5 million inhabitants. If Denmark, Finland and Norway are to be used as a benchmark for a comparison of cases per capita, the Icelandic figures need to be multiplied by 15 and the number of cases in Sweden divided by two.

* The number of grounds for discrimination varies between countries.

** Denmark had 3 equal work cases decided per year but none on work of equal value.

There are significant differences between the countries in terms of the total number of discrimination cases heard. Cases concerning work of equal value have primarily been heard in Iceland and Norway. In the case of Denmark, there are a few exceptions, but this is not reflected in the table. In the case of Finland and Sweden, the lack of trials could justify a discussion on ‘access to justice’, which is not the subject of this report.

To combine these figures with related factors that could provide possible explanations for the differences, we briefly relate them to the respective countries’ gender pay gap statistics and to unionisation rates. According to the OECD Gender pay gap statistics – OECD 2022, the unadjusted gender pay gap was smallest in Iceland (9.3%), followed by Sweden (11.1%), Denmark (13.9%), Norway (14.4%) and Finland (15.5%). Thus, no correlation can be inferred between the size of the pay gap and the willingness or need to initiate an equal pay dispute. A high level of unionisation could explain why disputes are primarily resolved within the framework of the pay negotiation system, without the need to go to court. Even in relation to this perspective, the statistics do not provide a convincing explanation.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD

The range of union density varies from 50 to 90 per cent, with Iceland at the top and Norway at the bottom.

As mentioned earlier, the decisions of the Swedish Board against Discrimination cannot be compared with the cases described above. The Board never examines employers’ explanations for particular pay differentials. What is examined, for example, is whether a pay survey has been conducted and whether the analysis covered both equal work and work of equal value. Since 2001, compliance with the provisions on pay surveys has been at the centre of the cases received. Between 2001 and 2006, the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman brought 13 cases to the Board. Following the establishment of the new Equality Ombudsman, which has supervision of all grounds of discrimination, the review of pay surveys was given lower priority. This authority has not brought any cases to the Board either. Trade unions on central level have initiated eight cases since 2001. Although the last petition from a trade union was successful, the Board has been idle since 2016. In general, the supervision of pay survey provisions is very weak.

From SOU 2020:79, p. 147, it is clear that for seven years there has been no examination of the work on pay surveys from the side of the Gender Equality Ombudsman. See also Svenaeus (2020).

The review of case law related to the concept of work of equal value reveals an interesting difference between the countries. This is particularly true of judgements from Iceland, Norway and Sweden, where different market pay levels have been put forward as evidence in employers’ defences. Another related explanatory factor for differentials in pay levels for work of equal value is collective bargaining, and the idea that this in itself legitimises pay setting. Collective agreements can thus be said to reflect the bargaining power of the parties and the equilibrium point reached based on market logic.

The report Marknadskrafterna och lönebildningen i landsting och regioner (Market forces and pay formation in county councils and regions) points out that in many contexts, for example when it comes to different types of job evaluation, it is common to see so-called market factors as one of a number of objective factors that can justify pay differentials between individuals. “But it is not really possible to make such a distinction. It is not the case that there are various factors that influence pay separate from the market; rather, the market is the mechanism that weighs different factors together.”

Calmfors and Richardson, IFAU report 2004:9, p. 23.

The Court of Justice of the EU has assessed references to the market made by social partners, as an objective reason for pay differentials. The Enderby case (C-127/92) in particular provides guidance. The dispute concerned a speech therapist in a managerial role who considered herself to be discriminated against in terms of pay in relation to a pharmacist in a managerial role of the same level. The work was considered to be of equal value. The employer was able to show that pharmacists had a large alternative labour market and that there was therefore pay competition between several employers. Speech therapists, on the other hand, were in principle confined to a single employer.

If that is not the case, it is for the national court to assess whether the role of market forces in determining the rate of pay was sufficiently significant to provide objective justification for part or all of the difference.

Clauses 26–28 in the Court of Justice of the EU’s judgement C-127/92 Enderby.

One conclusion of the Enderby judgement is that national courts need to examine and determine whether the market argument can explain all or only part of a pay differential.

What distinguishes the decisions of the Swedish Labour Court in this matter from the Icelandic and Norwegian decisions is the following: in all decisions, the Swedish court has accepted references to the ‘market’, or a pay agreement being confirmed in the form of a collective agreement, as a justification for pay differentials. There are a number of examples of Icelandic and Norwegian judgements where the ‘market’ argument has been rejected. Pay being set on the basis of a collective agreement also had no decisive significance on any of the outcomes. In Finnish judgements, there are clear statements regarding the reference to various collective agreements as an explanatory factor. The fact that pay was set based on collective agreements was not in itself deemed to constitute an acceptable justification for a gender pay differential.

The ‘market argument’ received particular attention in Sweden between 2002 and 2008, when reviews of pay surveys were given high priority by the Ombudsman. According to the assessments of the Swedish Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, a reference to the ‘market’ was an easy way out for employers who wished to preserve the status quo. The issue was highlighted in two reports by the Swedish Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, the 2003 års regeringsrapport om lönekartläggningsbestämmelserna (2003 government report on pay survey provisions; pp. 25–27) and 2005 års regeringsrapport om lönekartläggningsbestämmelserna (2005 government report on pay survey provisions; pp. 34–37).

Gender Equality Ombudsman (2003) and (2005).

Furthermore, the issue was highlighted in 2007 in the form of an anthology, Marknaden – saklig grund för lönesättning? En fråga tio svar (The market – an objective ground for setting pay? One question, ten answers) and a one-day conference. The initiative came from a network-based research project.

Fransson (ed. 2007).

A summary of Swedish experiences on this issue was published in 2023 in the report Marknadslöneläget som skäl för avsteg från likalöneprincipen (The market pay situation as a reason for deviating from the principle of equal pay).

Stüber (2023).