The revised draft indicates a clear direction of travel: alignment with the Directive in substance, combined with more prescriptive procedural requirements and targeted areas of divergence.

For a full overview of what Romania's draft law covers, see our earlier article on Romania's draft implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive here. 

Key changes for employers: what you need to know

The revised draft introduces several notable changes from the original draft law:

• The definition of "workers' representatives" under the revised draft now refers to Article 102(1)(B)(a) of Romania's existing social dialogue framework under Law no. 367/2022. This provides clearer parameters for the “workers’ representative” definition, reducing ambiguity present in the earlier draft.
• Deadlines for responding to pay report clarification requests have been made more prescriptive with the requirement for employers to respond within 30 working days which can be further extended by up to 30 working days. Remediation must be completed within 90 working days (extendable to six months where justified). Workers or their representatives can now also request clarification where information is incomplete or inaccurate.
• The six-month period for remedying unjustified pay gaps is confirmed in the revised draft and now requires consultation (not just cooperation) with workers' representatives. 

Detailed analysis of the revised draft changes

Pay structure terminology

The earlier draft required employers to organise a "remuneration system/department." The revised draft changes this to “remuneration compartment/system” at unit level.  Despite the terminology change, this requirement continues to impose organisational obligations beyond those required by the Pay Transparency Directive.

Response deadlines tightened

Pay report clarifications

The earlier draft set a 30 to 60 day window for employers to respond to pay report clarification requests. The revised draft clarifies this deadline: employers now have 30 working days, with a possible extension of up to 30 working days. Remediation must follow within 90 working days, though this can be extended to six months where justified. These response times illustrate Romania’s move towards procedural gold-plating, replacing the Directive’s “reasonable period” standard with fixed deadlines. While this provides clarity, it reduces flexibility and may create operational challenges for employers managing complex pay investigations.

Response where the information received is incomplete or inaccurate

This reflects a broader pattern in the revised draft of introducing fixed response times where the Directive does not prescribe specific deadlines. This reinforces a shift from principle-based compliance to rule-based compliance. Employers must provide a justified response within 30 working days where the Pay Transparency Directive does not prescribe a specific response period.

Remediation of unjustified pay gaps

The earlier draft set a six-month period for remedying unjustified pay gaps, but stakeholders had proposed extending this to twelve months. The revised draft confirms the six-month time period and includes a requirement to consult (not just cooperate with) workers' representatives during the remediation process. The Pay Transparency Directive requires remediation within a "reasonable period of time", whereas Romania introduces a fixed deadline, representing a more prescriptive approach. This limits employer discretion in sequencing and managing remediation activity.

Limitation Periods

Although references to a general limitation period remain, it has been clarified that former employees can bring pay transparency claims up to 12 months after their employment ends. This suggests a dual-track enforcement risk, with shorter administrative timelines but potentially longer exposure through the courts. The revised draft is also aligned with the Pay Transparency Directive in providing for legal costs protection where claims are reasonably grounded, which may increase the likelihood of claims being pursued.

Public procurement

Article 24 of the Pay Transparency Directive requires compliance with equal pay obligations for public contract operators and allows for possible exclusion where a 5% or greater pay gap exists. This provision was missing from the original draft and is still not provided for in the revised draft. This omission raises the possibility of incomplete transposition of the Directive.

Right to pay information

While Romania’s draft law is aligned with the Pay Transparency Directive in providing for the right to request pay information, the revised draft allows for workers to request and receive this information through the National Council for Combating Discrimination, the equality body in Romania.

This introduces a more formalised enforcement channel than required under the Directive, meaning employers should be prepared to respond to requests  from the National Council as well as from workers directly.

Workers’ representatives definition

The earlier draft defined “workers' representatives” narrowly: trade union representatives designated with responsibilities for equal opportunities between women and men. This created uncertainty, with the potential for employers to engage with a broad and undefined group of stakeholders.The revised draft has sought to make the definition more specific by aligning it to the definition of representatives under Article 102(1)(B)(a) of Romania's general social dialogue framework.

Under Article 102, representation follows a hierarchy: 

• Representative trade unions at the unit level come first.
• If none exist, representative sector-level federations can step in where non-representative unions in the unit give them a mandate.
• Failing that, non-representative sector-level federations belonging to nationally representative confederations can act (again, with a mandate from unit-level unions).
• Where none of these exist, all non-representative unions in the unit represent employees.
• Where no unions exist at all, elected employee representatives take on the role.

What happens next: timeline and outlook

The revised draft confirms that Romania’s overall approach remains one of substantive alignment with the EU Pay Transparency Directive. How However, the revised draft demonstrates a clear tendency towards procedural gold-plating, introducing fixed requirements that go beyond the minimum standards set by the Directive. While this increases clarity, it does so at the expense of the flexibility intentionally built into the Directive.

In practice, this shifts compliance from interpreting principles to adhering to prescribed processes and fixed deadlines.

The draft remains subject to change following public consultation. We will continue to track developments and update our EU Pay Transparency Directive hub as the legislation progresses.

For more information on the Pay Transparency Directive and its implications for employers, see our Pay Transparency Hub.