Wage parity, or wage equality, is a right of the worker, which provides that professionals who perform the same function, receive the same salary.
“alt =” “/>
Experience the convenience of audio! Press play and listen to the full article.
The determination is made through a paradigm. The paradigm is nothing more than the employee who serves as base of equivalence with another professional who is in the same role as him.
Therefore, the principle of equality is respected, where regardless of sex, establishment or salary, everyone has the same right. This determination is foreseen in the article 461 gives CLT law.
However, some changes in the law have emerged in relation to wage parity after the implantation of labor reform.
Changes that now allow the creation of internal company rules to establish a framework for careers and salaries.
To help you understand wage parity and the main changes in relation to the law, we have prepared special content on the topic. Check out!
The law of wage parity
Wage parity is provided for in the article 461 of CLT:
Art. 461. If the function is identical, all work of equal value, rendered to the same employer, in the same business establishment, will correspond to the same salary, regardless of sex, ethnicity, nationality or age.
The law also considers, for its validity, that work among professionals is “Of equal value and be done with equal productivity and with the same technical perfection”.
The objective of creating a salary equalization law is to prevent and protect employees from possible discrimination due to their differences.
Since they do the same job, they must necessarily have the same right.
The rights of wage parity
Although the law is very objective in relation to wage parity it is necessary to pay attention to some situations.
That is, even if the professionals have the same record in the portfolio, it does not mean that they have the right to receive the same wage than another professional.
It is necessary that the following points are respected for wage parity:
- Identical functions;
- Works of equal value, productivity and technical perfection;
- Service provided at the same establishment.
In some situations, the employee may not be entitled to wage parity, are they:
- Difference in length of service not exceeding four years;
- Time difference in function not exceeding two years;
- Career plans and functions according to company norms;
- Readjusted worker.
It becomes necessary, then, that both the company and the employee are aware of the determinations imposed by the law on the wage parity.
THE wage parity it must first take into account the paradigm and the equivalent, in order to know if they perform the same function.
O paradigm it is the worker that the company relies on to match. The equivalent is the professional requesting salary equalization. It is called “Paragonados” for both in the comparison.
Therefore, in order to make a wage parity employees must necessarily perform the same function.
Jobs of equal value, productivity and technical perfection
Recognizing in wage parity identical functions among professionals, it is necessary to assess whether the added value is the same.
For this, it is necessary to measure a value in relation to productivity and technical perfection in terms of the performance of the tasks performed.
That is, it is not enough that the two perform the same function, they need to be in the same level work. With tasks that have the same complexity and with executions that value the same technical perfection.
Service provided at the same establishment
THE labor reform imposed a change on this theme.
Previously, employees who performed identical functions in the same location, in different municipalities or metropolitan regions, were required to apply to wage parity.
However, the law has withdrawn this determination and now for salary equalization to take place they need to work “In the same business establishment”.
Thus, if the employer has branches, even in the same city, there can no longer be a requirement for wage parity. Employees must work at the same establishment.
Difference in length of service not exceeding four years
That “Difference in length of service for the same employer is not more than four years”.
O article 461 of CLT in item 1 underwent an adjustment with the labor reform, which included a detail for equal pay based on length of service.
From the reform, which came into force in 2017, the difference in length of service among the compared professionals must be respected for salary equalization.
The time cannot be longer than four years.
Time difference in function does not exceed two years
Despite the inclusion of length of service, there was no change in relation to time in the job.
The law also establishes that when comparing “The time difference in the job is not more than two years”.
For example, the paradigm has been in the job for three years and earns 10,000 reais and the applicant has been in the same job for only 1 year, in which case the salary equation is not worth it.
This is because, the time in the employee’s position is less than the two years provided for by the law.
Career plans and roles by company standards
In case the company has a career board, collective bargaining, job and salary plan to wage parity is taken into account in accordance with company standards.
Thus, the criteria of article 461 are not feasible and the internal rules of the company are valid as provided for in item 2.
The provisions of this article will not prevail when the employer has personnel organized in a career framework or adopts, through internal company norms or collective bargaining, a job and salary plan.
It follows, therefore, what the company determines for the wage parity. Be it taking into account the time in the company, in the function, merit or any of these cases.
Therefore, in a labor process referring to the issue of wage parity, the company will have the right to present its defense as a defense internal standard. Where a career plan or job and salary plan is stipulated.
The workers reinserted in another function within the company, for some reason attested by the social Security, cannot be paradigms in wage parity.
Despite the labor reform, this item was maintained in Article 461:
The worker readapted to a new position due to a physical or mental disability attested by the competent Social Security body will not serve as a paradigm for the purpose of equal pay.
Equal pay and employee rights
THE CLT law, together with the labor reform, provides a sense of protection and justice to the worker when exercising his function.
Equal pay comes against this path that does not tolerate discrimination and differences between professionals in the same function.
Therefore, it is necessary that the personal department always pay attention to contractual details of each of its employees. So, it avoids suffering from labor lawsuits that refer to the theme.
Even more in the case of wage parity and its changes with the reform, which gave even more flexibility to the rules and norms to be complied with and respected.
Paying attention to changes in the law is essential so as not to make mistakes when it comes to wage parity.