{"id":3003,"date":"2026-10-07T22:19:58","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T19:19:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/tinklarastis\/job-evaluation-and-grouping-for-pay-system-lithuania\/"},"modified":"2026-10-07T22:19:58","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T19:19:58","slug":"job-evaluation-and-grouping-for-pay-system-lithuania","status":"publish","type":"irasas","link":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/job-evaluation-and-grouping-for-pay-system-lithuania\/","title":{"rendered":"Job evaluation and grouping for a pay system: a practical guide"},"template":"","kategorija":[],"class_list":["post-3003","irasas","type-irasas","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"visi_puslapiai_cta_statusas":false,"visi_puslapiai_cta_antraste":"","visi_puslapiai_cta_formos_id":"","visi_puslapiai_cta_papildomas_tekstas":"","visi_puslapiai_cta_nuotrauka":null,"tinklarastis_1_autorius":null,"tinklarastis_1_iraso_tipas":false,"dinamiski_blokai":[{"acf_fc_layout":"tekstas","tekstas":"<p>By 31 December 2026 an employer must adopt a <a href=\"https:\/\/atlygis.linden.lt\/en\/\">pay system<\/a> or, if it already has one, review it and amend it where needed (Article 23(4) of Law No. XV-969). If a collective agreement sets the system, the employer need not adopt a separate one (DK Article 140(3)), but, in our view, the duty to review an existing system applies to that employer too (Article 23(4) of Law No. XV-969). The hardest part is not the text. It is scoring and grouping the positions. Job titles say nothing, so you must score your own positions yourself, based on the real work. A well-completed scoring sheet is your main evidence in a dispute: it turns a subjective judgement into numbers with which you can prove a difference is justified. If the employee points in a dispute to facts from which discrimination may be presumed, it is you who must prove there was none (DK Article 26(5)). We set out the overall order of steps in <a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/pay-transparency-directive-lithuania-employer-steps-and-deadlines\/\">\"Pay transparency in Lithuania: what employers must do, and by when\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n<h2>What the law says<\/h2>\r\n<p><strong>The law:<\/strong> positions must be divided into groups \"on the basis of objective and gender-neutral criteria\" (DK Article 140(3)). Five criteria are mandatory:<\/p>\r\n<ul><li><strong>skills<\/strong>, including communication, cooperation, conflict resolution and the ability to work with people;<\/li><li><strong>qualification<\/strong>;<\/li><li><strong>effort<\/strong>: the physical, mental and emotional resources needed to do the tasks;<\/li><li><strong>responsibility<\/strong>;<\/li><li><strong>working conditions<\/strong>: environment, intensity, risk, physical and psychological factors.<\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>Other relevant criteria may be added. Positions doing the same work or work of equal value go into the same group (DK Article 140(3)). Work of equal value is work that, on the same criteria, is of the same value as the comparable work (DK Article 140(5)).<\/p>\r\n<p>The law leaves the scale to you. VDI says the employer or an evaluation group it sets up chooses the criteria, and there is no maximum number of groups (VDI FAQ, question 2.1).<\/p>\r\n<h2>Who does the scoring<\/h2>\r\n<p><strong>Our recommendation:<\/strong> set up an evaluation group of two or three people, for example the manager, someone from another department and the accountant. Each scores the position separately; then you agree a score and record why in one sentence. A lawyer can propose the criteria and the scale, but the company must place the scores: only it knows what people actually do.<\/p>\r\n<p>The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) publishes a freely available <a href=\"https:\/\/eige.europa.eu\/gender-mainstreaming\/toolkits\/gender-neutral-job-evaluation\">toolkit<\/a>. It has a separate pathway for small and medium-sized organisations (10 to 249 staff) and Excel worksheet templates. Do not copy paid proprietary methods: your own scale, clearly described and applied consistently, is enough.<\/p>\r\n<h2>Five steps<\/h2>\r\n<p><strong>1. Tidy the list of positions and the job descriptions<\/strong> (more: <a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/job-descriptions-before-job-grouping-lithuania\/\">\"Job descriptions before job grouping\"<\/a>). You score the position, not the person. VDI recommends updating the job descriptions first (VDI FAQ, question 2.2). Use the company's real job titles in the groups (VDI FAQ, question 1.3).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>2. Set levels for each criterion.<\/strong> For example, \"responsibility\": level 1 \u2013 for one's own tasks; level 2 \u2013 for equipment, money or client data; level 3 \u2013 for other people's work or major financial decisions; level 4 \u2013 for the results of a unit or the company. Describe each level in one sentence.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>3. Weight the criteria.<\/strong> The weights should reflect your business. <strong>Our recommendation:<\/strong> weights should not belittle any criterion. VDI stresses that soft skills are assessed as objective job requirements (VDI FAQ, question 2.9).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>4. Score each position as if it were vacant.<\/strong> When grouping, positions are assessed as vacant, without linking them to the abilities of the people holding them (VDI FAQ, question 2.1). An experienced employee brings experience into their place within the range, not into the value of the position.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>5. Add up the points, set group boundaries and ranges.<\/strong> Each group (or position) gets pay amounts or limits: a minimum and a maximum (DK Article 140(3)).<\/p>\r\n<h2>Example: 6 positions, a 160-point scale<\/h2>\r\n<p>The numbers are illustrative. Points per level: skills \u2013 10 (up to 40), qualification \u2013 10 (up to 30), effort \u2013 10 (up to 30), responsibility \u2013 10 (up to 40), working conditions \u2013 5 (up to 20).<\/p>\r\n<p>| Position | Skills | Qualification | Effort | Responsibility | Conditions | Total | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Cleaner | 10 | 10 | 30 | 10 | 15 | 75 | | Reception administrator | 30 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 90 | | Warehouse worker | 10 | 10 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 90 | | Sales manager | 30 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 100 | | Accountant | 20 | 30 | 20 | 30 | 5 | 105 | | Head of department | 40 | 30 | 20 | 40 | 5 | 135 |<\/p>\r\n<p>Group boundaries: I \u2013 up to 89 points, II \u2013 90\u201399, III \u2013 100\u2013119, IV \u2013 120 and above. So group I is the cleaner; II the reception administrator and the warehouse worker; III the sales manager and the accountant; IV the head of department.<\/p>\r\n<p>Look at group II. The reception administrator mainly deals with clients and resolves conflicts. The warehouse worker does physically hard work. Taken as a whole, their work is of equal value, so the same range applies. If one position is held largely by women and the other largely by men, and their pay differs, the difference will have to be justified.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Range.<\/strong> VDI recommends ranges of, for example, \u00b115\u201320 % around the midpoint (VDI FAQ, question 1.9). If group II's midpoint is 100 %, a \u00b115 % range runs from 85 % to 115 %. The system states gross amounts, not net (VDI FAQ, question 1.8).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Place within the range.<\/strong> It follows criteria described in advance: experience, competences, results. Record the reason for each decision in the employee's file.<\/p>\r\n<h2>Equal points, but the market pays differently<\/h2>\r\n<p>A programmer and a lawyer may score the same points. If the market pays the programmer more, the points do not change: both go into the same group. VDI says labour market conditions may be a criterion for differentiating pay, but not for grouping (VDI FAQ, question 3.1). The employer then has to prove that higher pay reflects real market differences, for example with statistical data (VDI FAQ, question 3.1).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Our recommendation:<\/strong> write into the system that a market shortage is one of the criteria for the place within the range. Keep evidence for each such decision: dated ranges from similar job ads, State Data Agency statistics, records of a failed search.<\/p>\r\n<h2>Sample scoring sheet<\/h2>\r\n<p>&gt; <strong>Position:<\/strong> [title] \u00b7 <strong>Group:<\/strong> [number] \u00b7 <strong>Scored by:<\/strong> [three positions] \u00b7 <strong>Date:<\/strong> [date] &gt; &gt; | Criterion | Level | Points | Why this level (one sentence) | &gt; |---|---|---|---| &gt; | Skills | | | | &gt; | Qualification | | | | &gt; | Effort | | | | &gt; | Responsibility | | | | &gt; | Working conditions | | | | &gt; | <strong>Total<\/strong> | | | |<\/p>\r\n<h2>Mistakes to avoid<\/h2>\r\n<ul><li><strong>Scoring the person, not the position.<\/strong> \"Employee A is very experienced, so the position goes in a higher group\" is wrong. Experience decides the place within the range.<\/li><li><strong>Grouping by education only.<\/strong> A different education alone is not enough to put positions into separate groups (VDI FAQ, question 2.4).<\/li><li><strong>Different criteria for different departments.<\/strong> The same criteria must apply to all positions (VDI FAQ, question 3.14).<\/li><li><strong>Applying the new system to new hires only.<\/strong> The system applies to everyone equally (VDI FAQ, question 3.6).<\/li><li><strong>Probation as a reason to pay less.<\/strong> It is not an objective criterion on its own (VDI FAQ, question 3.10).<\/li><li><strong>No written record of the scoring.<\/strong> In a dispute you will have to show how the position was scored.<\/li><\/ul>\r\n<h2>What to do if...<\/h2>\r\n<p><strong>...the scoring shows someone is paid too little.<\/strong> The system applies to everyone. In VDI's view, unjustified gaps must be fixed within a reasonable period, for example 6 months, usually by raising the pay of those who are paid unjustifiably little (VDI FAQ, question 3.6).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>...someone earns more than the group maximum.<\/strong> Record the reason and the decision: either you revise the range or the system provides for an exception. In VDI's view, an exception is possible only in exceptional cases, for example where the supply of workers with exceptional skills is very limited, and it must be clearly set out in the system (VDI FAQ, question 3.11). An unexplained excess is the first question in a dispute.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>...two positions scored almost the same but look different.<\/strong> Check the level descriptions, not the result. If the descriptions are right, trust the points. In a dispute the employee only has to point to facts from which discrimination may be presumed, and you will have to prove there was none (DK Article 26(5)).<\/p>\r\n<h2>Related articles<\/h2>\r\n<ul><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/job-descriptions-before-job-grouping-lithuania\/\">Job descriptions before job grouping: how to fix them in one week<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/paying-new-hire-more-than-existing-employee-lithuania\/\">Can you pay a new hire more than a long-serving employee?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/unjustified-pay-gaps-how-to-fix-lithuania\/\">Job evaluation found unjustified pay gaps: how to fix them<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/pay-system-for-small-employers-lithuania\/\">Small employers: a minimum pay system by 31 December 2026<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/consulting-employees-on-pay-system-without-works-council-lithuania\/\">Pay system without a works council: how to consult employees in Lithuania<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/blog\/pay-transparency-directive-lithuania-employer-steps-and-deadlines\/\">Pay transparency in Lithuania: what employers must do, and by when<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\r\n<h2>How to start<\/h2>\r\n<p>Send us your list of positions and job descriptions. We will propose the criteria, the scale and the scoring sheet, help form the groups and turn the result into the pay system.<\/p>\r\n<p>Linden's full solution, from the pay system to informing employees, is at <a href=\"https:\/\/atlygis.linden.lt\/en\/\">atlygis.linden.lt<\/a>. Check which requirements apply to you: <a href=\"https:\/\/atlygis.linden.lt\/en\/self-check\/\">atlygis.linden.lt\/en\/self-check<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n<p>Phone +370 5 212 1506, email info@linden.lt<\/p>\r\n<p>More about this service: <a href=\"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/services\/labour-law\/drafting-labour-law-documents\/\">drafting labour law documents<\/a>.<\/p>"}]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irasas\/3003","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irasas"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/irasas"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irasas\/3003\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kategorija","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/linden.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kategorija?post=3003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}