header-logo header-logo

Equal pay for equal work

04 September 2024
Issue: 8084 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals , Equality
printer mail-detail

Retailer Next has lost an equal pay claim brought by 3,500 store staff and former staff, in the first equal pay group action decision in the private sector

Next paid its sales consultants, who were overwhelmingly women, lower hourly rates than its warehouse operatives. The employment tribunal found this amounted to indirect sex discrimination which could not be justified as having a legitimate and proportionate aim, in Thandi v Next Retail and Next Distribution (Case No 1302019/2018 and others). The average salary loss per claimant is more than £6,000 and Next may need to pay more than £30m compensation.

The tribunal rejected Next’s justification that it needed to pay market rates to recruit warehouse workers but could hire retail staff on lower rates.

According to Lewis Silkin partner Lucy Lewis and managing practice development lawyer Hazel Oliver, ‘Costs alone cannot be used to justify unequal pay—it is not a legitimate aim.

‘The [tribunal] went on to find that, even if this aim was legitimate, it was not proportionate because the business need was not sufficiently great to overcome the discriminatory effect of the lower basic pay. The [tribunal] was concerned that allowing market forces to be a “trump card” would defeat the object of equal pay legislation, by maintaining lower pay in particular sectors due to discriminatory practices in the past.’

Elizabeth George, Leigh Day partner representing the claimants, said: ‘This is exactly the type of pay discrimination that the equal pay legislation was intended to address.

‘When you have female dominated jobs being paid less than male dominated jobs and the work is equal, employers cannot pay women less simply by pointing to the market and saying—it is the going rate for the jobs.’

Leigh Day is currently representing store staff in separate equal pay claims against Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Co-op.

Issue: 8084 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals , Equality
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll