For any help or further guidance surrounding employment contracts, please call us on 01332 867 766 or send us an enquiry by completing the form below.
Next retail workers win £30m equal pay claim as tribunal rules their work is of “equal value” to warehouse staff, rejecting pay disparity justification.
31 October 2024
Insight
A long-running Equal Pay claim concerning mostly female store workers comparing themselves with mostly male warehouse workers was decided by an Employment tribunal in August, six years after it began. We consider below what happened in this case and what it might mean for other employers.
Equal Pay claims are complex and not necessarily the easiest to understand. Essentially, if two roles can be identified as having “equal value” then the employer has to pay the same rate for each role- unless they can justify the difference in pay by way of a “material factor”. An Employment Tribunal can find that that material factor is either directly discriminatory or (more likely) that it puts one sex at a disadvantage and is therefore indirectly discriminatory. If so, the employer must show that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
So what happened in this case? Well, the Employment Tribunal found that the Next in-store workers had succeeded in establishing that their work was of “equal value” to that of the warehouse staff, and then ruled that that difference in pay could not be justified. Next had tried to argue that the pay difference was due to market forces, their need to recruit and retain good staff and to boost productivity. The ET found that these were aims motivated by profitability and not sex (and therefore not directly discriminatory). So far, so good.
However, the fact that the instore cohort was around 75% female, and the warehouse cohort was around 50% male was enough to show a disparity. That meant that Next had to then justify that paying them less was a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.
It is well established that cost alone cannot be used to justify paying less- this would mean perpetuating pay discrimination and indeed contradicts what the Equal Pay legislation is trying to achieve. Although this wording was not used in this case- it is like saying “We pay women lower wages because they have always been lower”. This is not a reason for maintaining such practices. However, cost can be a legitimate aim where it is not the only aim- often referred to as the “costs plus” approach. In this case, the Employment Tribunal found that cost was the only aim and thus could not satisfactorily justify the inequality in pay.
Finally, although this decision is important in terms of its findings, we must apply caution in that it is only a first-level decision and Next has stated that they intend to appeal.
Furthermore, it was a case that – as always- was decided on its own facts. Whether or not similar cases featuring other household names such as Tesco and Asda will be decided in the same way remains to be seen.
Related Services
Understand employer rights when employees have second jobs, including contracts, working time, conflicts of interest and dismissal.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
Employment law tips for employers managing absence, flexibility and inclusion during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Read More
Guidance for employers on managing workplace distraction, excessive phone use and digital overload at work.
Read More
Key April 2026 changes to trade union recognition rules and what employers should do ahead of wider reforms later this year.
Read More
Government consultation begins on NDA restrictions under the Employment Rights Act 2025, with changes expected from 2027.
Read More
Employers can voluntarily publish menopause and gender pay gap action plans from April 2026 ahead of the 2027 legal requirement.
Read More
Understand SSP 2026 updates, employer responsibilities, and common pitfalls to keep your business compliant and protect staff rights.
Read More
EAT confirms employers should assess redundancies forward-looking, not retrospectively, when deciding if collective consultation is needed.
Read More
Learn the 2026 National Minimum Wage rates, common employer pitfalls, and how to stay compliant with new Fair Work Agency rules.
Read More
ERA 2025 reforms take effect February 2026, changing industrial action rules, employee protections, and union obligations.
Read More