Does every little help? Ian Smith delivers an update on supermarket equal pay litigation & goes the extra mile on early conciliation, victimisation & scandalous conduct
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld most of the tribunal’s findings in Tesco Stores Ltd v Element, affirming that detailed job training materials were valid evidence of actual work performed, despite some procedural and factual errors.
- In Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd, the EAT clarified that the two limbs of victimisation under s 27(1) of the Equality Act 2010 are closely linked.
- The EAT emphasised a non-technical, justice-focused approach in Chen v Coach Stores Ltd and Bailey v Aviva Employment Services Ltd, allowing claims to proceed despite naming discrepancies and scandalous conduct, respectively, where fairness and proportionality supported continuation.
There was a comment in one of these briefs a little while ago (picked up by my old mate and sparring partner, Professor Dominic Regan) about the increasing length of Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgments (‘The insider’,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
