More than 3,500 current and former employees at Next have successfully concluded a six-year legal fight over pay equality. In a landmark decision, an employment tribunal ruled that female-dominated store staff were unjustly paid less than their male counterparts working in the company’s warehouses. The tribunal found that there was no valid reason for the disparity in wages between the two groups, marking a significant victory for the store employees in their pursuit of fair treatment and equal pay. This ruling could have broader implications for gender pay equality in the retail industry as a whole.
Major Victory for Employees
Attorneys representing the shop employees hailed the ruling as a “major victory,” noting that the back-pay owed to workers could exceed £30 million. Despite the success for the employees, Next announced its intention to challenge the decision through an appeal. The company defended its pay structure by arguing that wages for warehouse staff were generally higher than those for retail workers across the broader labor market, and therefore, the differences in pay at Next were justified. However, the employment tribunal dismissed this argument, ruling that it did not provide a valid justification for the pay disparity between the two groups. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar claims of unequal pay across the retail sector, making it a case of considerable importance to both workers and employers.
As a result of this ruling, women like Helen Scarsbrook, who has been employed at Next for over two decades, are now set to receive substantial compensation for the years of unequal pay they endured. Scarsbrook, a 68-year-old from Eastleigh near Southampton and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, expressed her joy at the outcome. Reflecting on the arduous six-year legal struggle, she described it as a long and difficult road, but now she and her fellow claimants can celebrate their victory. They fought tirelessly for the equal pay they believed was rightfully theirs, and now they have succeeded.
Work not valued equally
Scarsbrook also emphasised the demanding nature of retail work, highlighting that retail employees face many of the same physical and emotional challenges as men working in warehouses, including heavy lifting. Despite handling the same tasks, their work had not been valued equally, but this ruling sends a powerful message that their contributions are just as significant and deserving of fair compensation.
Challenge Pay Inequalities
The compensation Helen Scarsbrook is expected to receive could total several thousand pounds, which she hopes will allow her to pay off her car loan, enjoy a well-deserved vacation, or even consider retirement. Elizabeth George, a barrister and partner at the law firm Leigh Day who represents the workers, believes this ruling will serve as significant motivation for employees in other industries to challenge similar pay inequalities. She emphasised that retail isn’t the only sector where jobs are divided along gender lines, with male-dominated roles often being paid more than female-dominated ones.
Employees at some of the UK’s largest supermarkets, including Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, and the Co-op, are also engaged in legal battles over equal pay, with the companies using similar market-based arguments to justify wage differences, just as Next did. George believes this landmark ruling could encourage further cases in other sectors, such as care work, hospitality, or construction. Numerous public sector cases have already addressed pay disparities, with workers in roles like teaching assistants and dinner ladies receiving lower wages than men working in refuse collection and related positions.
First equal pay group action
Next issued a statement highlighting that this case marks the first equal pay group action in the private sector to be resolved at the tribunal level, raising several significant legal issues. The company stressed that none of the claims accusing them of direct discrimination against female employees were upheld. Additionally, the tribunal determined that Next’s pay decisions were not influenced by any conscious or unconscious gender bias. The firm pointed out that over 80% of its retail staff are women.
However, Barrister Elizabeth George, representing the workers, argued that the tribunal recognized Next’s ability to pay higher wages but chose not to do so purely for financial reasons. She criticised the company’s justification based on market rates, describing it as a circular argument that effectively justified lower pay for women simply because they were already receiving lower pay in other jobs. The law firm Leigh Day confirmed that the claimants’ contracts would now be updated to reflect more equitable pay rates.
In instances where disparities were found, such as differences in the calculation of night shift payments, paid rest breaks for warehouse employees, and Sunday pay, more favorable conditions will be extended to store workers as well. However, it remains uncertain whether employees not directly involved in the lawsuit will automatically see improvements to their employment terms. According to Elizabeth George, the process of determining the amount owed to claimants in back-pay should commence without delay.
