Since the publication of the decrees governing salary increases in Tunisia’s private sector, one figure has dominated discussions: 5%.

Yet, after several weeks of exchanges with business leaders, HR managers, corporate legal advisors, and payroll professionals, we have observed that the real questions lie elsewhere.

This reform has brought back to the forefront topics often regarded as purely technical: sectoral collective bargaining agreements, job classifications, salary structures, and social compliance.

What if the real challenge was not the salary increase itself, but rather how it should be implemented?

2. What Does It Really Mean to Be Covered by the Salary Increase?

The decree explicitly states that employees whose remuneration exceeds the minimum salaries established by collective bargaining agreements are also covered by the measure.

However, this provision raises a practical question currently fueling discussions within many organizations:

What should be the basis for calculating the increase?

Let us consider a few examples from the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Electrical and Electronics Industry, often used as a reference by industrial and technology companies.

Under the 40-hour workweek regime, a Category 1, Grade 1 “frontline manager”

—roughly comparable to an entry-level engineer—has a collective base salary of 1,179.679 TND. A 5% increase would therefore represent approximately 59 TND.

Another example: a Category 3, Grade 3 supervisory employee—potentially corresponding to a production supervisor, experienced team leader, or workshop manager depending on the organization—has a collective base salary of 987.244 TND. Applying a 5% increase would result in approximately 49 TND.

These examples illustrate the importance of professional classifications established by collective bargaining agreements, which serve as the reference point for determining collective minimum salaries and, according to certain interpretations, the application of the new salary increases.

In practice, however, many employees earn salaries that significantly exceed collective minimums. An entry-level engineer or experienced supervisor may receive an internally negotiated salary well above the amounts defined by the collective grid.

This leads to a fundamental question:

Did the legislator intend to increase the collective salary benchmarks that constitute the minimum foundation for all employees, or to impose a proportional increase on the entirety of the salaries actually paid by companies?

This distinction is far from theoretical.

It may have significant implications for companies’ payroll costs while also raising questions of fairness between employees covered by different collective agreements or subject to different internal compensation policies.

At this stage, our technical interpretation suggests that collective salary grids remain the central reference around which the entire mechanism is structured. The fact that employees earning above collective minimums fall within the scope of the decree does not, in itself, definitively determine the calculation basis of the increase.

This issue will likely continue to generate debate in the coming months and may eventually lead to further administrative or judicial clarification.

3. How Should Legal Salary Increases Be Integrated into Existing Compensation Policies?

This reform should not overshadow an important reality: many Tunisian companies already have established internal salary increase policies.

Annual performance reviews, promotions, market adjustments, and periodic salary reviews often constitute the primary drivers of wage progression.

In some cases, these mechanisms may be more frequent, more consistent, or even more generous than legally mandated increases.

A key question therefore arises:

How should the legal increase be reconciled with existing compensation policies already implemented by companies?

The decree provides a partial answer.

It stipulates that a company which has already granted, during 2026, a general salary increase equal to or greater than the increase required by the legislation may, under certain conditions, be exempt from applying an additional increase.

This provision appears to acknowledge the existence of pre-existing compensation policies and their role in employee remuneration growth.

In some organizations, therefore, legal increases become part of a broader compensation dynamic already driven by the company itself.

4. Should Salary Increases Granted Before 2026 Be Ignored?

The decree uses the year 2026 as the reference period for assessing salary increases already granted.

However, this approach raises an interesting consideration.

Imagine two companies:

• The first grants a general salary increase in January 2026;
• The second grants a similar increase in November 2025.

In the first case, the company may benefit from the exemption provided by the decree.

In the second case, a strict reading of the text could lead to a different conclusion.

Yet from an economic perspective, the impact on payroll costs and employees’ purchasing power is relatively similar.

The legislator appears to have favored a calendar-year approach rather than a rolling twelve-month analysis.

While this approach has the advantage of simplicity, it may lead to situations where companies facing similar realities are nevertheless subject to different obligations.

5. Beyond the Decree, the Real Challenge Is Human

This is perhaps the most important lesson we have drawn from recent weeks.

Companies are not reaching out to us merely to calculate salary adjustments or interpret legal texts.

They are seeking understanding.

Understanding their employees’ expectations.

Understanding the social consequences of their decisions.

Understanding how to communicate clearly about a sensitive topic.

Because behind every legal salary increase lie very different perceptions.

Many employees are discovering, often for the first time, the existence of collective bargaining agreements, professional classifications, and collective mechanisms that have nonetheless governed their employment relationship for years.

Others naturally assume that the announced percentage should apply to their actual salary, even though the precise implementation methods remain subject to interpretation.

Business leaders, meanwhile, must find the right balance between legal compliance, internal fairness, economic constraints, and the preservation of a healthy social climate.

In this context, the role of HR professionals, payroll managers, and business leaders extends far beyond administrative compliance.

Applying the law is essential.

Explaining it is equally important.

People cannot be managed solely through decrees, payroll slips, or Excel spreadsheets.

They must also be managed through education, transparency, consistency, and sometimes the courage to make difficult decisions.

Ultimately, these decrees have already achieved one positive outcome:

They have brought back into focus topics often considered technical—sectoral collective bargaining agreements, professional classifications, compensation structures, and social compliance—even though they are, in reality, the very foundations of the relationship between companies and their employees.

Payroll is a technical discipline.

But behind every payroll line, there is always a human reality.

Who We Are ?

SAMASYS operates at the intersection of payroll, employment law, technology, and management.

We provide Payroll Engineering, Payroll Governance, and Social Compliance services to help organizations transform payroll from a purely administrative function into a strategic driver of compliance, transparency, and performance.

Above all, we are business practitioners. We understand operational constraints, human challenges, and the realities of the B2B environment.