Thousands of current and former Next employees have already secured a major victory in their fight for equal pay.
In 2024, an Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of more than 3,500 predominantly female store workers who argued that their jobs were of equal value to higher-paid warehouse roles. The decision could ultimately result in more than £30 million in backpay being awarded to the claimants, although aspects of the case remain subject to appeal.
For workers involved in ongoing supermarket equal pay claims, the ruling was an important moment. It showed that employers cannot simply point to job titles or historic pay practices to justify differences in pay.
What was the case about?
The claim was brought by thousands of Next store workers who argued that they were being paid less than warehouse workers despite carrying out work of equal value.
The tribunal had previously found that the store and warehouse roles were of equal value. The key question was whether Next could justify paying the two groups differently.
Next argued that warehouse workers needed to be paid more because of market conditions, recruitment pressures and the demands of operating warehouses around the clock.
However, the tribunal found that these explanations did not justify the difference in basic pay. It concluded that the lower pay received by store workers disproportionately affected women and that Next had not shown a sufficient lawful reason for the disparity.
Importantly, the tribunal also warned that employers cannot rely solely on market rates to justify lower pay, particularly where those rates may reflect historic assumptions about “men’s work” and “women’s work”.
Why is the ruling significant?
The decision reinforced one of the key principles of equal pay law: different jobs can still be entitled to equal pay if they are found to be of equal value.
That matters because many equal pay claims do not involve people doing exactly the same work. Instead, they involve workers comparing different roles and arguing that they make an equal contribution to the employer.
The Next ruling suggests that employers need strong evidence if they want to justify paying one group significantly more than another.
What does this mean for supermarket workers?
The Next case has attracted attention because similar arguments are being made in ongoing equal pay claims against several major supermarkets.
Workers at Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op have argued that store-based roles are of equal value to higher-paid warehouse and distribution centre roles.
Each case will be decided on its own facts, and the Next ruling does not determine the outcome of the supermarket claims. However, many employment lawyers believe it provides a helpful example of how tribunals may assess arguments around equal value, market rates and pay justification.
For supermarket workers pursuing equal pay claims, it is widely seen as an encouraging development.
Can you make a supermarket equal pay compensation claim?
If you currently work in a supermarket store, or have worked in one in recent years, it may be worth finding out whether an equal pay claim is already underway against your employer.
The claims are open to both men and women. What matters is the role you performed and whether you may have been affected by the pay practices being challenged.
Check whether a claim is already underway, or register your interest to receive updates if a claim becomes available through one of our legal partners.
Join the Claim connects consumers with SRA-regulated lawyers. Visit the claim page to check your eligibility if a claim is open with one of our trusted legal partners. If a group action has not yet been launched, you can register your interest and we’ll keep you informed if a partner firm decides to take a claim forward.
