Rather than relying on job titles or formal classifications, the Tribunal focused on the substantive reality of the work carried out in the case Jan Sammut vs HSBC Bank Malta plc¹. Its analysis centred on three principal areas:

1. The actual duties performed by the individuals concerned,
2. The relevance of HSBC’s Global Career Band framework (‘GCB’), and
3. The applicable legal principles drawn from both EU and domestic law.

This article shall delve into the respective areas assessed in the Tribunal’s considerations.

A. Actual Duties Performed, Rather Than Job Titles or Grades

The Tribunal’s approach was focusing on the actual duties carried out by both the claimant and the comparator, rather than only looking at their job titles or grades.

This approach was particularly significant because the comparator’s role fell within GCB1, a grade that was not covered by the applicable collective agreement. In light of this, the Tribunal considered that even more so, it could not simply rely on the formal grading structure but was instead required to examine the reality of the work undertaken by each individual.

To this end, the Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the claimant’s job content and responsibilities. This included a close review of the claimant’s reporting structure, which shed light on the level of seniority and accountability inherent in the role. The Tribunal also considered the claimant’s core responsibilities, focusing on the nature and scope of the tasks performed on a day‑to‑day basis. Particular importance was given to the extent of delegated trustee authority exercised by the claimant, as well as the authority to sign binding legal documents, both of which indicated a significant degree of responsibility and autonomy. Despite being entrusted with senior duties and acting in capacities such as Deputy Head or Head of Trusts, the claimant remained classified at GCB4. The Tribunal considered this disparity between the level of responsibility assumed and the grade formally assigned to be relevant when determining whether the claimant’s role was comparable, in substance, to that of higher‑band executives.

B. The Global Career Band (GCB) Framework and Job Complexity

In addition to examining the actual duties performed, the Tribunal also considered HSBC’s internal job evaluation framework, namely the Global Career Band system. This framework was relevant insofar as it provided a structured method for assessing and benchmarking roles within the organisation. The Tribunal analysed how the GCB framework evaluated roles by reference to a number of criteria, including the level of responsibility attached to a role, the level of accountability involved, and the overall complexity of the position.

The Tribunal also took into account how roles may differ across jurisdictions, acknowledging that job complexity and responsibility can vary depending on the operational and regulatory framework. In this context, the Tribunal examined how roles are benchmarked internally, including the use of job description comparisons and the process referred to as “matrix mapping”. This mapping exercise considered factors such as the knowledge required to perform the role, the scope of decision‑making powers, leadership responsibilities, the impact of the role within the organisation, and the qualifications required.

By analysing these elements, the Tribunal was able to understand the claimant’s role within the broader organisational framework and assess whether, when viewed objectively, it aligned with roles placed in higher career bands, particularly those to which the claimant alleged to be of equal value. The GCB framework therefore served as an additional analytical tool to assist the Tribunal in evaluating job complexity and comparability.

C. Relevant Law and Case Law

The Tribunal’s factual assessment was firmly grounded in established legal principles derived from EU law, CJEU jurisprudence, and doctrinal commentary. These legal sources provided the framework within which the concepts of “equal work” and “work of equal value” were to be interpreted, as well as guidance on the allocation of the burden of proof.

• Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’)

At EU level, the Tribunal relied on Article 157 of the TFEU, which has direct effect. This provision imposes a positive duty on national courts to safeguard the right to equal pay for equal work. Importantly, this duty extends to situations where discrimination arises from legislation, collective agreements, or unequal pay practices within the same establishment, whether in the public or private sector. The Tribunal also referenced established CJEU case law confirming that Article 157 applies directly to all forms of discrimination that can be identified solely by reference to the criteria of equal work and equal pay, without the need for additional national or EU measures to further define those criteria.

• Burden of proof

The Tribunal further addressed the burden of proof in equal pay claims with reference to EU Case law. In this regard, it affirmed that the initial burden rests on the employee, who must demonstrate both that they receive lower pay and that they perform work of equal value to that of their comparator. Once this threshold is met, the burden shifts to the employer, who must then establish that any difference in pay is not discriminatory.

The Pay Transparency Directive² (the “Directive”)expresses that once a worker establish before a competent authority or national court facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, the employer must then bring evidence to prove that there was no direct or indirect discrimination in relation to pay.

• “like work” and “work of equal value”

In interpreting the concepts of “like work” and “work of equal value”, the Tribunal referred to commentary of Selwyn³, and highlighted several key principles. It noted that employees with different professional training who are required to perform different duties cannot be said to be doing the same work. However, even where work is considered equivalent or of equal value, an employer may still defend an equal pay claim if the pay difference is genuinely attributable to a material factor. The Tribunal referred to Selwyn’s approach wherein the defence of a genuine material factor does not apply to differences in the actual work performed, as these are assessed at the stage of determining whether or not there is like work or work rated as being equivalent. In this regard, the Tribunal also reiterated that “like work” refers to work that is the same or broadly similar, with any differences being of no practical importance.

• Objective criteria

The Tribunal also referred to the case Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse vs Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse, Case C-309/97, concerning a preliminary ruling issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-309/97 on 11 May 1999.

This case dealt with the situation where the same work was assigned within the same grade to both doctors and psychologists, and the argument presented was that psychologists were thereby treated as if they were specialised doctors. The Court highlighted how Directive 2006/54/EC and Directive 2023/970 (the EU Pay Transparency Directive) clarify that the value of work must be assessed with objective criteria, including educational, professional, and training requirements, as well as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. For micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, these four factors, namely skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions are key, and should be weighted according to their relevance for each specific role. Additional relevant and justified criteria may also be considered.

The Tribunal in Jan Sammut vs HSBC Bank Malta plc assessed how, over the years, CJEU has set out criteria for determining whether different work is of equal value, including the nature of the work, as well as the scope of the comparison.

• Article 27 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act⁴

Finally, the Tribunal considered the purpose of Article 27 of the Act. It identified this provision as serving to enforce fair remuneration, to prevent an employee from being paid less than others within the same class.

Taken together, these considerations guided the Tribunal’s evaluation by directing its focus towards the actual work performed by the claimant and the alleged comparator/s.

The Tribunal adopted a functional and objective analysis of duties and responsibilities, and had comparability been established between the roles, a justification for the disparity in pay would have been sought from the employer. Nonetheless, the Tribunal concluded that Sammut’s role was not comparable to that of the CEO and the Head of Human Resources.

It shall be interesting to see how the Tribunal will seek to consider cases going forward, following the transposition of the Directive, by means of the recently published Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, 2026⁵. Read more on this here!

¹ Jan Sammut vs HSBC Bank Malta plc , Industrial Tribunal, 30^th January 2026, Case no. 3516.

² Directive (EU) 2023/970 

³ “Law of Employment”, 15th Edition, 2008.

⁴ Chapter 452 Laws of Malta.

⁵ LN 173 of 2026.