Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Employment Law / 73: Employment Appeal Tribunal confirms that Asda’s female retail employees can compare themselves to male distribution depot employees

In Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that store employees could compare themselves to employees working in distribution depots because this single source test was satisfied.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees bringing an equal pay claim who wish to compare their pay to employees working for the same employer must show that common terms and conditions apply. EU law also enables a comparison to be made where there is a ‘single source’ of pay and conditions which is responsible for any inequality and which could restore equal treatment.

Around 7,000, mainly female, retail employees have brought equal pay claims against Asda alleging that they are paid less than the mainly male distribution centre employees despite doing work of equal value. As a preliminary issue, Asda argued that the claims should be struck out because it is not possible to compare two groups of staff who work at different sites and have distinct terms of employment set by separate procedures. For example, the retail staff terms apply only in stores and are set by the Asda Board, whereas the distribution staff terms are set mainly through collective bargaining.

The EAT rejected Asda’s arguments, confirming that the Employment Tribunal had been correct to conclude that despite these differences, ultimately responsibility for pay for both groups derives from a single source: Asda’s Executive Board, which is itself subject to governance by Wal-Mart. The EAT also held that there are significant similarities in the employment terms of the claimants and the comparators. However, the EAT granted Asda permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, noting that there were strong arguments in favour of both parties that should be considered at a higher level and potentially also referred to the ECJ.

If this case proceeds, other issues will remain to be considered, including whether the claimants carry out work of equal value to their male comparators, and whether the material factor defence applies to justify the pay disparity. Given the complexity of the equal pay legislation, this litigation could therefore last for many years. This case is a reminder to employers to assess the risks of equal pay claims across their organisation, for example, within a group of companies where the parent company board has the ultimate power to set pay.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron