Weekly analytics for 11 – 17 March

Does the Adopted Law Address the Issue of Unified Approaches to Remuneration in Government Bodies?

Event

On March 11, the Law № 4282-IX “On amendments to certain laws of Ukraine related to implementation of unified approaches to civil servants’ remuneration based on job classification” was passed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Its adoption in the first quarter of 2025 was a key indicator of progress in implementing the Ukraine Facility Plan supported by the European Union.

CPLR’s assessment

Among the key advantages of the Law are the following:

stable salary structure, with the base salary forming the core of remuneration, while the variable component is limited to bonuses, seniority allowances, rank-based allowances, and compensation for access to state secrets;

preservation of the requirement to approve a unified procedure for forming the salary fund (provided by the law since 2019 but unfortunately remains unimplemented);

increase in the minimum base salary for civil service positions in government bodies whose jurisdiction covers one or more districts, cities, or city districts. The minimum salary is set at no less than 2,5 subsistence minimum for non-disabled person, as established by law (currently, it is 2 subsistence minimum);

intent to define the legislative mechanism for calculating and establishing the maximum number of civil servants;

requirement to compare salary levels for typical civil service positions with those in the private sector. 

The key drawbacks of the Law are the following:

1. Misalignment between the Law’s title and its content – while the Law claims to establish unified approaches to civil servants’ remuneration, it includes numerous exceptions and special provisions for certain government bodies.

For instance, a special salary scheme has been introduced for the State Audit Service and its territorial bodies, even though this provision was not included in the draft law during the first reading.

Additionally, a special salary scheme and Catalog of typical civil service positions have been introduced for civil servants in the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

A total separation of salary regulations has been approved for government bodies regulated by special legislative acts, such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). These institutions are legally classified as central executive bodies, their employees perform work of similar complexity and responsibility as the staff in other comparable institutions, such as those handling administrative functions, legal support, and international cooperation, etc.

The classification of government bodies into the first, second, and third types fails to consider the nature of the work performed in each position, which has a significant impact on base salary levels.

Furthermore, the criteria for assigning government bodies within these types remain unclear. For example, certain central executive bodies, such as the office of the Judicial Protection Service, the Maritime Administration, and the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Planning, have been placed into the same category as ministries.

2. Loss of oversight in conducting job classification, as the NADS – which is the central executive body responsible for civil service matters, will no longer approve the accuracy of such classifications in key institutions. These include the Secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada, the Government Secretariat, the President’s Office, the Central Election Commission (CEC), the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, higher specialized courts, the High Council of Justice (HCJ), the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), the Office of the Prosecutor General, and others.

3. Another drawback is the provision allowing the Cabinet of Ministers to continue setting additional pay adjustment coefficients for various government bodies during martial law and for six months after its termination. This discretionary power poses corruption risks, as it enables selective determination of which institutions receive adjustments and to what extent.

The possible consequences of implementing these approaches are the following:

a) failure to comply with the international principle of “equal pay for equal work”. In government bodies of first type (such as the President’s Office, the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), and the Central Election Commission (CEC and other), employees performing administrative support functions (e.g., clerical work, accounting, internal audit, procurement, etc.) will receive significantly higher base salaries than those holding similar positions within second type (ministries and similar bodies) and third type (other government institutions) with the same jurisdiction;

b) failure to comply with European Commission recommendations, outlined in the 2024 EU monitoring report on Ukraine, according to which the current remuneration system is based on a “jurisdiction level” model, which lacks clear and transparent criteria for classification;

c) further classification of certain government bodies as “higher” types when amending the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service” (a practice previously observed in the 1993 Law, where positions were often upgraded to higher categories whenever the opportunity arose).