header-logo header-logo

Workers win Tesco equal pay case

04 June 2021
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Equality
printer mail-detail
Pay conditions for Tesco shopfloor workers can be compared with those of warehouse and distribution staff, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in a landmark decision on equal pay

The shopworkers, who are mostly women, say Tesco pays them up to £3 per hour less than warehouse staff, who are mostly men. The decision, Tesco Stores [2021] EUECJ C-624/19, comes three months after the Supreme Court held 40,000 Asda shopfloor workers could compare their roles to colleagues in distribution centres (Asda Stores v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10), and could result in £2.5bn in backdated pay claims.

Kiran Daurka, partner at Leigh Day, which acted for 50,000 Tesco workers, said: ‘For a long time, employers have argued that UK law in this area is unclear, but this judgment is simple, if there is a single body responsible for ensuring equality, the roles are comparable.

‘Clarification from the ECJ confirms that this single source test can be relied upon by people in the UK bringing an equal value claim. This means that employers can no longer hide behind the grey areas of UK law. It’s time for supermarkets to accept that the roles of shop floor workers and distribution centre workers are comparable.’

The UK has chosen to retain EU employment equality laws post-Brexit.

Camilla Beamish, legal director at Cripps Pemberton Greenish, said: ‘The workers relied on the “single source” principle, whereby it could be shown that the inequality in pay was attributable to a single source, in this case the Board of Tesco.

‘The Court dismissed Tesco’s argument that the EU principle defining equal pay for equal work or work of equal value was not applicable here and their argument that the roles required “different skills and demands”. This judgment leaves little uncertainty and demonstrates the Court’s firm hand with regard to equal pay claims.

‘Despite Tesco remaining adamant that they remunerate their staff fairly, the impact of this ruling will now make it even harder for businesses to justify paying their female and male staff differing rates for work of equal value. In addition, given the overwhelmingly high profile of both Asda and Tesco, it is hoped that these recent judgments will set a precedent for other private sector businesses and encourage them to urgently review their remuneration structures and equality policies.’

Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Equality
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll