This paper examines the issue of ?Individual Wage Increased by Collective Agreements?. Generally speaking, collective agreements assure a minimum standard of working conditions for employees. In particular, they set remuneration policies such as minimum wage. In practice, a number of employment contracts contain wage arrangements that differ from those stated in the collective agreements. As a consequence, a considerable amount of employees are remunerated greater than the minimum wage. In the literature, the minimum wage set out by collective agreement is referred to as ?Soll-Lohn? while the actual, paid wage, is called ?Ist-Lohn?.Due to the fact that higher compensation has become common practice in labor contracts, the parties to collective agreements have begun aiming to influence these individual wage agreements. Instructions to increase individual wages, so called ?Ist-Lohn-Klauseln?, have been appearing more and more often in collective agreements. ?Simple?, versus ?qualified?, ?Ist-Lohn-Klauseln? have caused relatively little controversy while the more complex, ?qualified? clauses, have sparked a national debate. This paper examines the various points of criticism and tries to offer possible solutions. Specifically, it discusses the varying opinions of labor lawyers, different legal explanations for this phenomenon and addresses, in depth, groundbreaking court decisions related to the issue.A major controversy concerning this issue is whether it is possible to waive ?Ist-Lohn-Klauseln? in advance as well as in retrospect. Neither the voices in the academic literature nor the supreme courts have reached a consistent opinion in the matter, so this paper gives due attention to illuminating the different perspectives on this particular issue.