Hauliers should review the pay rates for their male and female employees across the whole company after a tribunal ruled that Next store staff must be paid the same as warehouse workers, according to a specialist employment lawyer.

Harry Abrams, a partner at JMW Solicitors, said unequal pay between men and women in any department within a business where they are considered to be performing ‘work of an equal value’ raised the possibility it would be judged unlawful.

The high street retailer argued that the different pay rates for its warehouse staff was due to market forces being driven by the wider labour market and that the difficulties in recruiting and retaining warehouse workers meant they required higher pay than its shop staff.

But an employment tribunal ruled that Next had failed to show that paying their sales consultants, who were overwhelmingly women, less than their warehouse operatives, was not sex discrimination.

The decision could cost Next more than £30m in back pay.

Abrams said men and women must get equal pay and companies could be flouting UK pay laws if they were performing work of an equal value – even if that work involved doing very different jobs.

He said the landmark ruling meant operators should review their own pay rates and not just in the warehouse:

“This is because if there is work of an equal value being performed in different sectors of the business, there will be a requirement for equal pay between men and women, despite the work being different,” he said.

“In the Next case, warehouse workers were 52.75% men, but because they were being paid more than their female comparators in retail, the pay was found to be unequal.

“Therefore, employers should focus on the equality of pay between male and female staff comparatively in all departments, as opposed to only when a department is male or female dominated.

“However, clearly if there are work types that do have a materially higher proportion of gender, it is likely that these are the areas of higher risk.”

Abrams suggested employers conduct an equal pay audit or a more comprehensive job evaluation scheme internal assessment, which would group job roles into salary bands and ensures that all within a band which are rated as equivalent are paid the same.

“Clearly there is still a risk that employers will wrongly categorise which roles are equivalent but it should act as a good starting point and can be used to show that the company do take such issues seriously,” he said.

However, he cautioned: “There is a risk however that taking such measures, especially if the conclusion is that there is unequal pay, will make it easier for employees to bring claims and puts pressure on the employer to take corrective action immediately which will raise costs in the short term.”

Asked whether increasing HGV pay rates during the height of the driver crisis could have created unforeseen problems for operators in light of the Next decision, Abrams said: “Increased pay for HGV drivers could be problematic if there are comparable workers in the company that are paid unequally.”

He added: “If there is a workforce within the same company that is [found to be] comparable to the HGV drivers, and the pay rates between men and women are unequal, this may be unlawful.”

Last week, Rainbow Dynamics said the tribunal decision could mean a major shift towards robotics to overcome the economic challenges presented by warehouse staff recruitment.

Topics