For years, supermarket store workers – mostly women – have earned less than their warehouse colleagues, who are mostly men. Employers often justify the gap by claiming warehouse jobs are tougher and deserve higher pay. But – according to some lawyers – that argument doesn’t hold up.
If you work in a store and want to challenge why you’re being paid less, a recent legal win by retail workers at Next shows you may have a strong case.
What the law really says about equal pay
The Equality Act 2010 gives you the right to equal pay for:
- Like work: the same or very similar roles
- Work rated as equivalent: jobs scored the same under a job evaluation scheme
- Work of equal value: different jobs that require similar effort, skill, and responsibility
This means your job doesn’t have to be identical to qualify for equal pay. If your role involves comparable complexity, effort, and judgment, you could be entitled to the same pay.
Why the “warehouse work is harder” doesn’t stand up
It’s true that warehouse work can be physically demanding. But that alone doesn’t determine pay. Employment tribunals consider all aspects of a role, including:
- Physical and mental effort
- Problem solving and judgement
- Responsibility and working conditions
Store workers are not just scanning items they’re multitasking – handling customer issues, restocking shelves, managing queues, and keeping the store safe. That’s a demanding job requiring a wide skill set. And that’s what the courts look at.
The Next equal pay ruling changed everything
In 2024, store workers at Next – mostly women – won a landmark case when a tribunal ruled their work was of equal value to their warehouse counterparts.
What happened in this case?
Store workers at Next were being paid less than warehouse workers. The two groups did different types of work, but store employees believed their roles required just as much effort, skill, and responsibility.
Next said warehouse roles were more physically demanding and that it had to pay more to attract staff to those jobs. They claimed this justified the pay gap.
But the tribunal wasn’t convinced. It disagreed with Next and found:
- The store roles were of equal value to the warehouse jobs
- The pay difference could not be properly justified.
After a six-year legal battle for equal pay, Next store workers won. The ruling meant Next store workers were in line to receive thousands of pounds of compensation for the pay they missed out on.
Why this matters for supermarket workers
This Next ruling was a major step forward. It showed that:
- Jobs don’t have to be identical to qualify for equal pay. They just need to be of equal value.
- Employers must provide strong, evidence-based reasons for pay differences.
General claims about physical difficulty or market rates are not enough to explain why one group is paid more – especially if higher-paid workers are men and lower-paid workers are women.
If you work in an Asda, Tesco, Morrisons or Sainsbury’s store and believe your job is just as demanding as higher-paid warehouse roles, the Next case shows you can win.
Join a Supermarket equal pay compensation claim
If you have worked at any of these stores, you could qualify for more than one equal pay claim. And, if your claim is successful, your compensation could increase for every hour worked from the day you join until the case concludes. Sign up now to ensure the maximum payout possible.
