header-logo header-logo

26 March 2021
Issue: 7927 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court grants step forward on Asda equal pay case

Asda shop floor workers can compare their roles to those of their colleagues in distribution centres, the Supreme Court has held in an equal pay case

Equal pay claimants must be able to compare themselves to a valid comparator, and the comparator must be a real person employed by the same, or an associated employer. If the comparators are at another establishment (cross-establishment comparators) then Equality Act 2010 ‘common terms’ must apply.

The claimants, who were predominantly women, seek compensation on the basis that in the six-year period prior to commencing proceedings in 2014, they received less pay than a valid comparator for the same work. The cross-establishment comparators chosen are employees at Asda’s distribution depots, who are predominantly men.

Asda applied for dismissal of the claims on the basis of lack of common terms, since the retail and distribution centres were at separate locations.

However, the court dismissed the supermarket’s appeal, in a unanimous ruling, Asda Stores v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10.

Delivering judgment, Lady Arden said the case was ‘important because otherwise an employer could avoid equal pay claims by allocating certain groups of employees to separate sites so that they can have different terms even where this is discriminatory’.

Leigh Day solicitors, which is representing the 44,000 workers, said the claimants will now argue the roles are of equal value and, once that issue is decided, the case will move to the question of whether Asda can establish a reason, other than sex discrimination, why the roles are not paid equally.

Leigh Day also represents clients from Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, the Co-op and Next in similar equal pay cases, which may be impacted by the judgment.

Rhona Darbyshire, employment partner at law firm Cripps Pemberton Greenish, said: ‘This is a monumental decision and the ramifications are significant not only for the 45,000 ASDA employees who brought the claim but also for the hundreds of thousands more employees who work for similar businesses. The likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Co-op all have similar claims waiting in the wings with a combined estimated value of 8 billion. This decision will be a real boost of confidence to the claimants and to any potential future claimants thinking of bringing a similar equal pay cases. Hopefully this decision will also encourage businesses in the private sector to reflect carefully on the true meaning of equal pay for equal work.’

Susan Harris, legal director at GMB, which is supporting many of the workers, said the decision was ‘a massive victory for Asda’s predominantly women shop floor workforce’.

Issue: 7927 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll