One step closer to victory for Asda workers in Equal Pay action

Back in 2019, claimants in the group action satisfied the courts that their Asda store-based roles were ‘comparable’ to the relevant comparators’ roles held by men in Asda distribution centres. Following the latest hearing in late 2024, the Employment Tribunal (ET) has now ruled that 12 of 14 lead claimants’ store-based roles are of equal value to at least one comparator distribution centre role. 

The ET adopted a point-scoring scheme to assess the ‘value’ of each lead claimant’s role.

It then compared that score to the score given to each lead comparator’s role using the same matrix.

The scheme measured the following factors for each role:

• Knowledge.
• Problem-solving and decision-making.
• Responsibility for others.
• Responsibility for assets.
• Responsibility for health and safety.
• Communication skills.
• Emotional demands.
• Mental demands.
• Physical skills.
• Physical demands.
• Working conditions.

The ET found that two lead claimants’ roles (‘Personal Shopper’ and ‘Shop Floor Assistant – Edible Grocery’) did not score on par with any of the lead comparator roles.¹ However, the remaining lead claimants’ roles scored equal to at least one lead comparator role. The ET noted that as the demands of each lead claimant’s role increased, that claimant established equal value against more comparators.

What next?

The parties now need to apply the ET’s findings across the wider claimant and comparator populations in the group action. This will no doubt be a complex and time-consuming task, given the tens of thousands of claimants involved. This latest decision may come as another blow for retailers in the aftermath of the Next equal pay action.

Asda will have the opportunity to justify the pay differences between claimants who undertake work of equal value to identified comparators. That justification must be genuine and, critically, it must not be related to sex or gender. This is known as the ‘material factor’ defence.

This latest ET ruling serves as a useful reminder for employers to stay informed about – and compliant with – emerging legal standards. We expect to see increasing numbers of cases relating to equal pay, particularly within the retail sector. While outcomes depend on specific facts, this ET decision highlights the need for employers to look at the ‘bigger picture’ of their overall workforce distribution. Employers should keep in mind that roles could be of equivalent value to the business, even if those roles have different job descriptions or are based in separate locations.

Foonotes

1. Lawyers for the Claimants may appeal this finding.