Two key changes to the right to information framework include a narrower definition of “pay level” and a restriction limiting employees to one information request every 12 months. Employers operating in Italy should now take steps to map classification systems, audit pay elements and put in place processes for handling information requests before the obligations take effect.

As we said in our insight about Italy’s February draft, Italy’s key national design choice of making national collective bargaining agreements the primary reference point for “work of equal value” remains a central feature of the Italian legislation. While the approved text’s changes are largely procedural refinements and further alignments with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, the confirmation of a 7 June 2026 commencement date means that employers operating in Italy should be taking immediate steps to prepare.

The Italian government’s overarching approach has been to simplify obligations for employers, which helps explain why Italy is one of the few larger Member States implementing the Pay Transparency Directive on time.

Key takeaways for employers

• The approved text confirms 7 June 2026 as the commencement date.
• The definition of “pay level” (which is used in the right to information) is narrower - and more contentious - than the broader definition of pay used elsewhere, raising practical questions about scope across different obligations.
• Recruitment transparency obligations reference the broader definition of “pay” rather than the narrower “pay level”, meaning job adverts should cover variable components and benefits in kind, as well as collective bargaining agreement provisions.
• Employees’ right to request pay information is limited to once per year – helpful for employers but requiring a clear internal process.
• The reference framework for equal-value comparisons have been broadened.
• Agency workers are in scope for information rights and reporting obligations at end-user level but are excluded from headcount threshold calculations.
• Apprentices are back within scope, having been excluded in the February draft.
• Employers need to formally confirm the accuracy of reported pay gap data following consultation with worker representatives creating a clear accountability mechanism and a potential risk if inaccuracies later emerge.
• Employers will need to establish accessible criteria for pay, pay levels and pay progression, as the approved text removes the previous limitation that applied only where such criteria already existed.
• A fixed 60-day deadline for responding to clarification requests has been introduced, replacing the earlier “reasonable timeframe” standard.
• Implementing decrees must now be issued within 90 days of the decree coming into force and after consultation with the Italian data protection authority, (the Garante).
• Joint pay assessments are more closely aligned with the Pay Transparency Directive, with authorities stepping in only where no agreement is reached.

What are the key changes between the approved text and the February draft?

A firm start date, with limited time to prepare

As noted above, on 30 April 2025 the Italian government approved the legislative decree implementing the Pay Transparency Directive. Although the decree has not yet been published in the Official Gazette (which will confirm the final text), the approved text provides for a commencement date of 7 June 2026 - the Directive’s transposition deadline. There is no grace period for obligations other than reporting, which is expected to start from 2027.

This matters because some obligations are operational, not just legal. Employers may need to deal with employee information requests immediately after the law comes into force, perhaps from as early as Monday 8 June 2026, the day after the transposition deadline. Reward and HR teams should therefore focus now on who will own the process, which datasets will be used, how categories will be mapped and how responses will be checked.

A revised definition of “pay level” used in right to information requests – and the key challenges

The approved text reframes “pay level” as gross annual salary and the corresponding gross hourly wage, defined as the totality of fixed and continuous remuneration elements. It expressly excludes non-structural, individual remuneration that is discretionary, temporary, or not applied broadly within the same category of workers and based on individual objective criteria.

This is one of the most significant technical changes in the approved text and, as discussed in our podcast, one of the most contentious. This is important because “pay level” is central to one of the most operationally complex aspects of the Pay Transparency Directive: the right to information.

The difficulty lies in the divergence between concepts: while “pay” remains broadly defined, “pay level” now focuses on fixed and ongoing elements.

In practice, “pay level” is likely to capture minimum salary levels under applicable collective bargaining agreements, fixed employer increases, and certain benefits in kind (such as meal vouchers or company cars) where these are reflected in the pay slip. Variable or discretionary elements are likely to fall outside this definition.

For example, if a minimum salary under a collective bargaining agreement was EUR 50,000, but the employer topped this up to EUR 60,000, the additional EUR 10,000 might be disregarded when looking at mean pay under a right to information request.

This gives rise to a number of important compliance tensions:

• Mismatch with employee remuneration: The “pay level” disclosed in response to an employee information request may be lower than the total remuneration actually received over the relevant period. Essentially, information requests become about “theoretical” pay, rather than actual pay. Employers should not assume this simplifies compliance; correctly categorising each pay element may require a detailed, line-by-line review of pay structures, benefits and variable pay arrangements. Further guidance in this area would be particularly valuable, and it is something that we understand should be provided in late June/early July.
• Misalignment with reporting obligations: The definition of “pay level” sits uneasily alongside the reporting obligations due to apply from next year, which are based on a much broader concept of “pay”, covering all remuneration elements - fixed, variable and in kind. This creates a clear inconsistency: the information provided to employees may be based on a narrower definition than that reported externally to authorities. In other words, the internal transparency regime and the reporting framework are not fully aligned.
• Implications for recruitment transparency: As recruitment transparency obligations refer to the broader concept of “pay”, job advertisements should include not only fixed salary but also variable components, benefits in kind, and any relevant collective bargaining provisions.

Right to information requests are limited, but not simple

The approved text limits employees to one information request every 12 months. This is helpful for employers because the February draft did not contain an express limit on the frequency of such requests. Italy is (so far) the only country to restrict this right.

The limit on requests does not remove the operational complexity. As we discussed in our podcast, and mention above, there is still uncertainty about the reference period for pay level information, because the draft does not clearly say whether employers should use the previous 12 months, a rolling 12-month period or another measure. Employers should therefore build a process that is robust enough to adapt when further Ministry of Labour guidance is issued.

The approved text also includes a data protection safeguard. Save as follows, where disclosing average pay level information to an employee would reveal personal data relating to identifiable individuals, the employer may disclose the information only to worker representatives, not directly to the requesting employee. Worker representatives may then advise employees on whether to exercise their rights based on that information, but may not share the underlying figures. The approved text does not entirely resolve issues relating to data protection but it is hoped that further Ministry of Labour guidance or implementing decrees will clarify this, including the specific safeguard for employers with up to 49 employees. Employers should factor this safeguard into their information request processes, including by identifying categories where small populations may trigger the restriction.

Refined definition of “same work” and expanded classification sources

The approved text revises the definition of “same work” so that it refers to the performance of identical tasks attributable to the same exemplary qualification within the same salary level and legal category of classification under the relevant national collective bargaining agreement. It also broadens the classification sources that may be used for equal value comparisons, adding decentralised bargaining for the private sector and supplementary bargaining for the public sector, where permitted, or by law.

This reflects Italy’s distinctive approach of placing national collective bargaining agreements at the centre of the equal value framework. Where such agreements are applied, there is a presumption that the employer is complying with equal pay obligations.

There is a degree of tension within this model. On one hand, using collective bargaining agreements is a significant simplification for employers. On the other hand, this may be an oversimplification. As we discuss in our podcast, collective bargaining agreement levels can be broad, may group very different roles together and may not map neatly onto senior roles such as executives and middle managers. The result may be pay gaps above 5% within categories that are too broad to reflect how employers actually assess role value.

That is why internal classification systems matter. The approved text continues to recognise that employers may need to integrate national collective bargaining classifications with company pay grading systems. For multinational employers, this means global grading models may still be relevant, but they should be reconciled carefully – where possible - with Italian collective bargaining structures.

Agency workers: in scope for some purposes, but not headcount

The approved text does not expressly mention agency workers in its operative scope provision. It applies to subordinate employment contracts, whether fixed-term or indefinite, including part-time and managerial positions, and expressly excludes only domestic work contracts and intermittent employment contracts. The position on agency workers therefore comes from the explanatory report to the approved text, rather than the main scope wording.

The explanatory report states that, for the purposes of the Pay Transparency Directive, the provisions are to be referred, in the case of supply of work, to the user and to the collective agreement applied by the user. On that basis, agency workers are in scope for end users for reporting obligations and the right to information. They do not count towards the user company’s headcount for threshold purposes, which reflects existing Italian law providing that agency workers generally do not count towards a company’s headcount for legal regulation purposes, except for health and safety rules.

Employers using agency workers in Italy should therefore treat this as a split analysis. Agency workers may need to be included in relevant information and reporting exercises for the end user but may not push the end user over the size thresholds that trigger obligations. This is a point to track closely as the implementing measures and official guidance develop.

Apprentices are back in scope

The February draft excluded apprenticeship contracts, domestic employment contracts and intermittent employment contracts. The approved text removes apprenticeship contracts from the list of exclusions, meaning apprentices now fall within scope.

This is a concrete change for employers with apprentices in Italy. They should consider how apprentices fit into their pay data, classification structures, information request processes and any future reporting analysis.

Worker representatives: familiar structures, new pressure points

While the definition of worker representatives has been under considerable debate, the approved text’s definition continues to include members of unitary trade union representatives, company trade union representatives, territorial representatives of signatory trade unions where there is no internal representative body, and people to whom workers may legally confer a specific mandate. However, as we discussed in our podcast, this definition does not address situations where a company does not apply a collective bargaining agreement. In such cases, there is no clear framework - or defined role for worker representatives - to rely on.

The engagement model with worker representatives looks relatively pragmatic. Employers may not need to agree categorisation with worker representatives when integrating collective bargaining levels with an internal classification system. Collaboration becomes more central where a joint pay assessment is triggered by a relevant pay gap.

The approved text also adds a new accuracy confirmation step for reported pay gap data. Employers must formally confirm the accuracy of reported data after consulting worker representatives who have access to the methodologies applied. This adds a governance check and a potential risk area if the underlying methodology or data quality is later challenged.

Pay and pay progression criteria are no longer conditional

The February draft required employers to make criteria for pay and pay progression available “where such criteria exist”. The approved text deletes that qualifier.

That is a subtle but important change. It makes the obligation look less like a disclosure rule and more like a governance rule. Employers should expect to have criteria for determining pay, pay levels and pay progression, and those criteria should be accessible to workers. Employers with fewer than 50 employees remain exempt only from the pay progression criteria transparency requirement, not from the requirement to make pay and pay level criteria available.

Fixed 60-day deadline for responding to clarification requests

The February draft required employers to respond to requests for clarification on reported data “within a reasonable timeframe”. The approved text specifies a deadline of sixty days from receipt of the request. While sixty days is relatively generous, it now creates a hard compliance obligation where previously there was discretion.

Implementing decrees and the Garante

The approved text adds that implementing decrees must be issued after consultation with the Italian data protection authority, (the Garante) and within 90 days of the decree coming into force. The Garante’s involvement appears focused on reporting obligations and the handling of pay and salary structure information disclosed externally.

The approved text also adds data processing safeguards for published pay gap data and includes the National Institute of Social Security in the monitoring body’s composition.

The 90-day deadline is important because the technical rules may arrive quickly. Employers should avoid waiting for every detail before starting their readiness work, but should also design systems that can be adjusted when the implementing decrees land.

Joint pay assessments are more closely aligned with the Pay Transparency Directive

Under the February draft, employers subject to reporting had to conduct a joint pay assessment with worker representatives where a pay gap of at least 5% in average pay in any category was revealed, was not justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria and was not corrected within six months. The approved text adds further detail, requiring consideration of the reasons for pay differences and measures to address differences that are not justified by objective and gender-neutral criteria. This additional specification aligns the Italian approach with Article 10 of the Pay Transparency Directive

The approved text also clarifies escalation. The Labour Inspectorate and equality body become involved in remedial measures if no agreement is reached at company level, rather than as a general option. This reinforces company-level resolution as the primary mechanism.

What should employers do now?

Employers should start with classification. Italian collective bargaining levels, decentralised or supplementary bargaining classifications and internal grading structures need to be mapped against each other before reliable equal value analysis can be carried out.

They should then audit pay elements. The distinction between broad pay, pay level, fixed and continuous elements, variable pay and benefits in kind will be central to recruitment transparency, information requests and reporting.

Employers should also prepare information request processes now. Those processes should cover request intake, annual request tracking, data extraction, category identification, worker representative involvement, privacy checks and response sign-off.

Finally, employers should review recruitment materials and recruiter guidance. Italy’s approach to job advert pay transparency, which we covered in our insight about Italy’s February draft, means the obligation will be visible in the market, not just buried in internal HR processes. Importantly, the recruitment transparency obligation references the broader definition of “pay” rather than the narrower “pay level” definition. This means that job adverts and recruitment information should include variable components and benefits in kind as part of the pay range or initial pay information disclosed to candidates.

Our team will continue to monitor the Italian legislation and any implementing measures as the position develops.

For the latest developments on how EU Member States are transposing the Directive, visit our EU Pay Transparency Directive Hub.