Equal Pay Appeal Fails

Equal pay obligations apply to all employers, regardless of size. An employment law case involving Tesco which concluded this month is a useful reminder of the risks for businesses of every scale. Here, we can see how even multi-billion-pound companies can be caught up in extended litigation as a result of equal pay disputes.

On 12 May 2026 we saw Tesco fail in its bid to overturn the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)’s approach to determining the value of the roles carried out by shop workers across stores across the UK. The dispute involved thousands of workers in an equal pay claim.

Basis of the equal pay claim

The heart of the claim against Tesco was that those working the tills, restocking, and performing other ‘front of house’ style tasks as part of their job are paid less than their colleagues in ‘back of house’ warehouse and distribution centre type roles. The primary argument is whether the ‘value’ of these two roles is equal.

The importance of this claim is that the store worker roles are predominantly occupied by female employees, whereas the distribution centre roles are majority male. Hence why the claim has been brought under the relevant section of the Equality Act 2010.

The complications surrounding equal pay

At first sight, it sounds as though the law should be relatively straightforward to apply in that women should be paid the same as their male counterparts for the same work. In practical terms, is notoriously complicated, as many businesses discover to their cost. For instance, a claim in the last few years involving Birmingham City Council reached the Supreme Court and resulted in a judgment that required more than £760 million to be paid to female employees.

The issue in dispute here was not the final decision. Instead, the focus was on whether the EAT had adopted the correct approach in its use of training materials as a starting point for considering the value of the two roles. The Court found that the approach adopted of drafting ‘equal value job descriptions’ for each member of staff ‘in minute detail’ which were ‘extraordinarily long’ was not the correct approach and that the EAT was correct in being able to view the roles more generally and by reference to the training materials. As an example, the Judgment set out that some of the descriptions ran to between 122 and 175 pages each. Given that this claim involves thousands of employees, it is not surprising that the Court was conscious of the Tribunal’s ability to effectively deal with such a large claim.

The recent Judgment was regarded as being a positive step forward by the solicitors representing the Tesco employees, who saw it as the removal of unnecessary hurdles and overly technical arguments in large volume claims such as this. The full hearing is likely to be heard over the coming years and will determine the position of whether these two roles are actually of ‘equal value’.

Practical tips for employers

While it is difficult for an average UK business to find much guidance in the technical points, there are some practical takeaways.

• Tribunals will look at what employees actually do in practice, rather than relying solely on lengthy or overly detailed job descriptions. Employers should therefore ensure that roles which may appear different on paper are reviewed in terms of their day‑to‑day duties, skills required and level of responsibility. Carrying out periodic internal pay audits and comparing roles across the business can help identify any potential equal value issues at an early stage.
• The same principles apply to smaller businesses. If a role has a different title and job description but ultimately performs similar work or work of equal value, equal pay should be given to avoid a potential claim by employees. The best example is likely to be the Birmingham City Council claim – broadly speaking employees who cleaned inside the building (and were predominantly female) were paid less than their counterparts who were tasked with cleaning the exterior of the building (and were predominantly male).

Last but not least, if you are unsure whether your pay policies are compliant and would like individual advice on this topic, please feel free to contact us on 01553 666600. Getting it right at the outset will undoubtedly be more cost-effective than being on the receiving end of an equal pay claim and will also be better for workplace morale.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483

Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.