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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll