· News

Asda equal pay tribunal advances to final stage

The final compensation value of the claim, if successful, could be as much as £1.2 billion

Female workers at supermarket Asda have advanced to the final stage in their legal battle for equal pay, in what law firm Leigh Day described as "the largest ever private-sector equal pay claim".

Launched in 2014, the claim is about whether the shop-floor workers, who are mainly women, are paid less than distribution workers, who are predominantly men, for work of equal value. This would violate equal pay law.  If successful, individual claims could be worth around £20,000.  

The tribunal ruled that 12 out of 14 of the lead claimants’ in-store jobs are of equal value to comparable jobs in distribution centres.


Read more: Next loses equal pay tribunal after basing pay on market rates


The case is set to now move to the final stage of the claim in which Asda will have to show that there is a reason for the pay difference between store workers and warehouse workers which is not based on sex. 

Lawyers at Leigh Day represent more than 60,000 workers in the case. The final compensation value of the claim, if successful, could be as much as £1.2 billion.  

Representatives of Leigh Day have said that the firm is disappointed by the ruling that two roles (personal shopper and shop floor assistant – edible grocery) were not of equal value for the time period being looked at. The lawyers are carefully considering the possibility of an appeal.

Speaking exclusively to HR magazine, Linda Wong, employment partner at Leigh Day who represents the Asda claimants along with Lauren Lougheed, reminded HR leaders that they must ensure that predominantly male and female jobs of equal value are not paid differently. 

"Look for patterns or discrepancies in pay that may indicate a gender bias,” she said. “In particular, consider if there are any inbuilt assumptions about the value of duties that are traditionally performed by women, such as people-focused tasks, as opposed to those done by men, such as tasks requiring physical effort.”

Matt Jenkin, employment partner at law firm Herrington Carmichael, added, speaking to HR magazine: “Employers with gender imbalances in parts of their workforce will need to consider whether particular groups are able to compare themselves with other higher-paid cohorts, and whether they are at risk of finding that the roles being undertaken are of equal value.”

If these risks are identified, he continued, employers should consider whether their reasons will justify the discrepancy in pay, even under detailed examination.

Wong recommended that employers implement a clear structure for how pay is decided: “Foster transparency regarding salary ranges or scales by communicating clear criteria for how salaries are determined.  

“Encourage open dialogue in order to expose any pay disparities. It is not sufficient to compare pay structures with industry standards, as care must be taken to evaluate all roles thoroughly and to eliminate unconscious bias."


Read more: Equal pay claims rise for third consecutive year


Last year, retailer Next lost a six-year equal pay claim after a tribunal found that the retailer paid warehouse workers, who were mostly men, more than shop workers, who were mostly women. The tribunal ruled that it should not have relied on market rates when deciding on employees' pay.

Wong said that employers should continually evaluate jobs, to avoid similar legal problems.

She said: "There should be a commitment to regularly assess the criteria applied to pay structures to ensure that it is objective, non-discriminatory, and that it recognises the skills of men and women equally. Regular assessments should also include HR and employers checking that pay structures are applied in a consistent and unbiased way."

Jainika Patel, senior associate at law firm Freeths, told HR magazine: "HR can reassess pay structures during annual pay reviews; when they are introducing new roles or changing job descriptions; after any organisational changes such as mergers or restructuring; and when adhering to employment law obligations which could include gender pay gap reporting."