Retailer Next has won an appeal allowing it to pay warehouse workers more than shop floor staff after an employment tribunal ruled that they were entitled to the same rates of pay.
More than 3,500 Next staff had argued that better-paid warehouse jobs were more likely to be filled by men due to the physical demands of the work, which put women at a disadvantage.
In 2024, an employment tribunal ruled that the store staff, who are predominantly women, were entitled to the same rates of pay as Next’s warehouse operatives for their basic hourly rate, premiums for working Sundays, nights and overtime and rest-breaks.
The decision was expected to cost the retailer more than £30m in back pay.
The law firm for the claimants, Leigh Day, said that since that ruling, several thousand more Next staff had brought equal pay claims and the total number involved in the litigation had risen to more than 6,000.
However, this week, an appeal tribunal disagreed with the tribunal’s decision on basic hourly pay and found Next was justified in paying warehouse workers a higher basic rate, due to market forces and recruitment and retention pressures within the sector.
Leigh Day described the judgment as a “mixed ruling” and said that it would appeal.
Elizabeth George, partner at Leigh Day representing the claimants, said: “I am pleased that the employment appeal tribunal rejected Next’s arguments that its pay practices do not disadvantage women. They plainly do and the appeal tribunal firmly recognised that.
“The appeal tribunal’s conclusion on basic pay is disappointing. Next pays market rates in both its stores and its warehouses in order to recruit and retain staff. The market rate is higher in the predominantly male warehouse labour market, even though the work carried out in stores has already been found to be equal work.
“If an employer need only show it pays the market rates to justify pay discrimination, the very market conditions that give rise to the discrimination then become the legal justification.
“While the store staff and their legal team welcome many aspects of this appeal judgment, we respectfully disagree with this approach to justification.”
Next had not responded as we went to press.
