header-logo header-logo

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

Equal pay for equal work

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll