The joint pay assessment (JPA) is a mandatory, structured audit triggered when a difference of 5% or more in base pay or gross hourly pay within a job category is not objectively justified or corrected within six months. You carry it out together with the works council. Non-compliance leads to fines, a reversed burden of proof, damages risk, and reputational harm.
Last update: February 1, 2026 · Reading time: 8 minutes
The JPA follows a three-step model. Only when all three steps are met does the obligation arise.
Your pay report shows a difference of 5% or more in base pay or gross hourly pay between men and women within a job category.
You cannot justify that gap on the basis of objective, gender-neutral grounds.
The gap has not been closed within six months after the report was submitted.
Many employers think reporting is the end point. It is not. Reporting is the signal. The JPA is what happens when you ignore that signal.
Article 10(2) of the directive prescribes what a JPA must contain. It is an in-depth analysis, not a surface-level check.
Map the share of men and women per job category.
Average pay levels and variable components broken down by gender.
Pay differences are identified, with a justification for why the gap is or is not warranted.
An often-overlooked but critical element: how does pay evolve after returning from leave?
An action plan to close the gaps, with deadlines for each measure.
If measures were already taken, assess their effectiveness.
This is not a one-sided employer process. You carry out the JPA together with worker representatives or the works council, who have consent rights on both the assessment and the action plan.
This distinction is essential. Many employers conflate the JPA with pay reporting, but they serve very different functions.
A periodic data obligation. You submit figures on pay differences per job category. Reporting is a signalling function: it surfaces where the pay gaps sit.
A corrective escalation mechanism. It goes beyond data: it requires analysis, collaboration with the works council, and a concrete action plan with deadlines to close the gaps that were identified.
Analogy: Think of reporting as the thermometer. The JPA is the treatment that follows when the temperature is too high and you do nothing about it.
The Dutch Labour Inspectorate (NLA) supervises compliance. Non-cooperation triggers serious consequences.
These fines are made public. For repeat offences, the fine can be doubled, with the third-category fine ceiling as the limit.
Not the employee, but you must prove that there is no discrimination.
No upper limit for affected employees, including back pay and non-material damages.
Published fines and visible non-compliance can weaken your position as an employer.
Publication of fines hits your reputation as an employer in a labour market where talent is scarce.
Don't wait until the JPA is triggered. Preparation starts now.
Get your job categories in order and make sure they are built on gender-neutral foundations
Run a proactive pay gap analysis before the mandatory report does it for you
Document objective pay criteria so you can justify any gaps
Bring your works council in early, they will have to consent later, so include them now
Payqual supports employers at every step of this process: from setting up role clusters and running pay gap analyses to documenting objective pay criteria and preparing for a possible JPA, so you are not caught off guard when the six months are up.
The JPA obligation is tied to the reporting obligation and applies from 100 employees. Only when reporting reveals an unjustified difference of ≥5% in base pay or gross hourly pay within a category that is not closed within six months does the obligation to carry out a joint pay assessment arise.
Yes. The JPA is explicitly a joint process with worker representatives or the works council. They have consent rights on both the assessment and the action plan with the associated measures and timeline.
Actively share item g, consult the works council in advance, and explain on request. What the Dutch draft law requires and how to set up an internal route.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive requires periodic reporting on pay differences.
Why you cannot trust a generic chatbot for the Pay Transparency Directive. Concrete examples of AI hallucinations with legal consequences.
Payqual maps your pay structure, flags >5% gaps, and provides the substantiation to justify or correct them, before the six-month window closes.