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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll