On the 30th of January 2026, the Industrial Tribunal delivered its decision for Jan Sammut vs HSBC Bank Malta plc, a case that delves into the challenging crossroads of job grading frameworks, equal pay principles, and how authority is distributed across intricate corporate hierarchies. The Tribunal’s analysis extended beyond pay itself, and into an assessments of the value of roles and how responsibility levels affect their value, as well as the application of legal principles of equality within their organisational structures.

In fact at its core, the case delved into a particular question: when does responsibility translate into equal value for pay purposes? The Tribunal’s answer, however, demonstrates that the legal assessment of “value” is anything but straightforward. This raises the issue of whether it is reasonable to expect all employers, regardless of their business model or size, to conduct such an analysis to establish a pay structure that complies with equal pay principles. Even more so now that Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, 2026¹ has been published (Read more) for further transposition of the EU Pay Transparency Directive² into Maltese law,  which mandates Member States to take appropriate measures for development of gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems. The Tribunal examined this matter by also considering the company’s pay structure (more on this in Part 3 of the series).

This series of articles shall examine various aspects of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. Before turning to the Tribunal’s detailed reasoning, it is necessary to understand how the dispute arose and what was claimed.

Employee, Two Roles
Mr Jan Sammut was employed by HSBC Bank Malta plc for over two decades. Over the course of his career, he rose through the organisation to become Deputy Head and later Head of Trusts, holding a Global Career Band 4 (GCB4) position within the bank’s internal grading structure.
Importantly, Sammut did not contest his classification as GCB4 in relation to his back office and managerial duties. His grievance arose from what he described as a parallel and distinct function, namely his role as a licensed professional trustee.
Sammut argued that, alongside his managerial responsibilities, he exercised delegated trustee powers, involving significant responsibility over trust assets, decision making autonomy, and fiduciary responsibility. In his view, these trustee powers were not merely ancillary to his managerial role, but constituted a function of such weight and significance that it should have been separately recognised and graded. On this basis, he contended that the authority he exercised placed him at par with, or even beyond, that exercised by the bank’s Chief Executive Officer, a position classified at GCB1.

Sammut’s case was grounded in Articles 26 and 27 of Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta, which regulate the principle of unlawful discrimination and gender inequality, and equal pay for work of equal value, respectively. Sammut alleged that HSBC’s remuneration structure resulted in unlawful and discriminatory pay differentials between employees classified within the different pay bands GCB1, GCB2, GCB3, and GCB4.

From this foundation, Sammut sought comparison primarily with the Chief Executive Officer. The Tribunal also ordered for a comparison with the role of Head of Human Resources. His case therefore required the Tribunal to confront not only the factual nature of his work, but also the legal question of who may serve as a comparator in an equal pay claim, particularly within a multinational corporate group.

Crucially, this was not a dispute about effort, dedication, or competence. The Tribunal repeatedly emphasised that this was not a dispute surrounding Sammut’s personal effort, dedication and commitment, but rather on the roles themselves.

Interestingly, the claimant had formally requested that the Tribunal appoint an expert to:

1. assess and measure the work carried out by Jan Sammut and the CEO, Andrew Beane;
2. attribute a value to each role; and
3. thereby enable a determination of whether the two roles were of equal value for pay purposes.

The request was also procedurally linked to a broader objective to justify the joinder request of HSBC Holdings plc to the proceedings, on the basis that it constituted the relevant single source capable of remedying the alleged discrimination (more about the single sources in Part 2 of the series).

However, the Tribunal rejected the request to summon HSBC Holdings plc as a party to the case, but did not immediately rule on the request for an expert. Instead, it reserved its decision on the latter until after the closure of evidence. Effectively, the Tribunal did not deny that expert assistance might, in principle, be useful. Rather, it made clear that such assistance could only be contemplated only if it proved necessary to resolve a question that the Tribunal itself could not determine on the basis of the evidence.

When the issue of expert appointment was brought up again throughout the course of proceedings, the Tribunal once again rejected the request and explained that the request for an expert was premature, because the evidentiary phase had not yet fully concluded, and the Tribunal had not completed its own assessment of the facts. More so, the appointment of an expert could only be justified after the Tribunal had determined whether the roles in question were capable of being compared. The Tribunal reaffirmed an important principle- the appointment of an expert is discretionary, not automatic.

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed Sammut’s claims, concluding that he was not performing equal work for equal value when compared with the CEO and the Head of Human Resources. The decision is significant as it is one of the first major Industrial Tribunal decisions delivered following the initial transpositions of the EU Pay Transparency Directive.

For employees, the case illustrates the high evidentiary threshold required to challenge established grading systems and to demonstrate that work performed is of equal value to that of a chosen comparator.

For employers, it underscores the importance of coherent, well‑documented role evaluation frameworks, and the protective value such frameworks can offer when properly applied.

The articles that follow will unpack this roadmap step by step.

¹ LN 173 of 2026.

² (Directive (EU) 2023/970).