One of the most common arguments in the supermarket equal pay claims is that warehouse roles deserve higher pay because they are more physically demanding.
At first glance, that might sound reasonable. But equal pay law looks at more than just physical effort.
Recent developments in the long-running Next equal pay litigation have highlighted an important point: jobs do not have to be identical to attract equal pay protection.
What the law really says about equal pay
Under the Equality Act 2010, men and women have the right to equal pay for:
- Equal work: the same or very similar roles
- Work rated as equivalent: jobs scored the same under a job evaluation scheme
- Work of equal value: different jobs that require similar effort, skill, and responsibility.
The final category is particularly important in the supermarket claims.
Work of equal value does not mean two jobs are the same. It means that, when factors such as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions are considered, the roles may be worth the same to the employer.
Why the “warehouse work is harder” doesn’t stand up
It’s true that warehouse work can be physically demanding. But that alone doesn’t determine pay. When tribunals assess whether two jobs are of equal value, they consider a range of factors, including:
- Physical and mental demands
- Skills and training required
- Levels of responsibility
- Decision-making and problem-solving
- Working conditions.
This means that a role is not automatically worth more simply because it involves more lifting, manual handling or physical labour.
Different jobs place different demands on workers.
For example, store workers may spend their day assisting customers, handling complaints, replenishing stock, operating tills, maintaining safety standards and working under constant time pressures. Warehouse workers may face different challenges, including physical demands, productivity targets and shift patterns.
The legal question is not which job is harder. It is whether the jobs are of equal value overall.
What happened in the Next equal pay case?
The Next litigation involved thousands of predominantly female store workers who argued that their roles were of equal value to higher-paid warehouse jobs.
The Employment Tribunal agreed that the store and warehouse roles were of equal value. It also rejected key parts of Next’s defence and found that the company had not shown a sufficient lawful justification for the difference in basic pay.
The ruling was a significant development in equal pay law and could ultimately result in substantial backpay being awarded to claimants.
Why does this matter for supermarket workers?
The Next case is important because it reinforces a principle that sits at the heart of the supermarket equal pay claims.
Store workers do not need to show that their jobs are identical to warehouse roles. Instead, they argue that the work they perform is of equal value and should therefore attract equal pay.
Claims involving Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op continue to progress through the legal system, with workers making similar arguments.
Each case will be decided on its own facts. However, many employment lawyers believe the Next decisions provide an important example of how tribunals may assess arguments about equal value, market rates and pay justification.
Could you be affected?
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 involving your employer.
If you have worked at more than one supermarket, you could qualify for more than one equal pay claim. And, if your claim is successful, your compensation could increase for every hour worked from the day you join until the case concludes.
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.
