Asda workers fighting for equal pay have advanced to the final stage in their legal battle, as the employment tribunal ruled some of their jobs are of equal value to the jobs of their colleagues in Asda’s distribution centres.  

The tribunal found in favour of 12 out of 14 women acting as ‘lead claimants’ for the store workers, deciding they have established equal value with some of the lead male comparators.

The decision means the Asda shop-floor workers have now won two out of the three stages of their equal pay claim – confirming that their roles are comparable and of equal value. The third stage will require Asda to provide a reason for the difference in pay.

Lawyers at Leigh Day, which represents more than 60,000 workers in the Asda equal pay claim said they were disappointed by and may appeal the tribunal’s ruling that two roles (personal shopper and shop-floor assistant – edible grocery) were not of equal value. The judgment covers the time period between August 2008 and June 2014.

Equal pay claims

Birmingham City Council to settle 6,000 equal pay claims

Morrisons workers move forward in equal pay claim

More than 150 MPs urge Asda bosses to end sex discrimination

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

Leigh Day partner Lauren Lougheed said: “This is a significant step for the thousands of Asda store workers who have established equal value. Our clients have fought for over 10 years to achieve recognition of the value of their work and I am so pleased for them. We hope that Asda will now focus on resolving their cases quickly, rather than prolonging the process.

“Today’s ruling will of course be bitterly disappointing for our clients who work in the job roles that were not found to be of equal value. We believe that a strong case was put forward for these roles, and we will be discussing our next steps with those affected.

“Equal pay is a fundamental right, and this decision takes us one step closer to ensuring that the hardworking colleagues in Asda’s stores are not undervalued and are paid what they are owed.

“Our clients’ demand is clear: they want to be treated fairly. This means being paid the same as their colleagues in other parts of the business, who do work of equal value.”

The case, which represents the largest ever private sector equal pay claim, now moves to the final stage of the claim where 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 will also work on applying the tribunal’s findings to the other claimant job roles, those not covered by the 14 lead claimant roles.

Linda Wong, another Leigh Day partner representing the women, said: “We know Asda has publicly cited financial pressures in the past as a reason for resisting these claims. However, the company’s recent financial reports paint a different picture, showing that it remains a profitable business capable of addressing pay disparities without significant hardship. It must not be forgotten that the people working on the shop floor are the lifeblood of their business and without them Asda would not be making any money at all.”

Last year, shop workers at Next succeeded in their equal pay claim after the retailer failed to show that the difference in their pay rates was not sex discrimination, having previously demonstrated that the roles were comparable and of equal value.

Leigh Day is currently representing more than 37,000 workers in similar claims against Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and the Co-op.

It said the final compensation value of the Asda claim, if successful, could be as much as £1.2bn.

Nadine Houghton, GMB national officer, said: “This is a historic step towards securing equal pay justice for tens of thousands of Asda workers, but it is tainted with bitter disappointment for those who now face an appeal.

“These women have been fighting for what they are owed for more than 10 years and are close to ending the era of retailers systematically undervaluing women.

“It’s telling many of the roles judged to be of equal value are the traditional shop floor roles women have held in retail for so long.

“It’s a crushing blow that some roles were not considered of equal value and we will be discussing next steps, including the possibility of an appeal.

“GMB now calls on Asda to stop wasting time and money dragging this case through the courts and get round the table with us to agree a settlement.”

An Asda spokesman said: “We strongly reject any claim that Asda’s pay rates are discriminatory.

“Asda will continue to defend these claims at the next stage of the litigation because retail and distribution are two different industry sectors that have their own market rates and distinct pay structures.”

Philip Richardson, partner and head of employment law at Stephensons, said: “This judgment, whilst still subject to appeal, is another landmark moment for thousands of workers up and down the country. At its core, it underlines once again that there is no genuine reason for a disparity in pay between store workers and warehouse workers based solely on their sex.

“In the retail industry, and in many other settings, today’s verdict could trigger an avalanche of similar claims, some of which are already in progress. There are some, particularly unions like the GMB, who see this as a reckoning for an industry which has consistently undervalued the work of women.

“These issues are likely to rumble on for some time before any decisions are made concrete, but many will sit up and take notice of this verdict and the potential liabilities that could stretch into the billions of pounds.”

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Email(Required) OptOut From time to time, we will send you emails about selected products, events and services from Personnel Today and OHW+ - but you can choose to opt-out at any time. If you do not wish to receive these emails, please tick this box.EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_129');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_129').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_129').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_129').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_129').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_129').val();gformInitSpinner( 129, 'https://www.personneltoday.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', true );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [129, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_129'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_129').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [129]);window['gf_submitting_129'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_129').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_129').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "129", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_129" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_129"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_129" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; jQuery( document ).trigger( 'gform_post_render', [129, current_page] ); gform.utils.trigger( { event: 'gform/postRender', native: false, data: { formId: 129, currentPage: current_page } } ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} ); /* ]]> */