**More than 3,500 current and former workers at Next have won the final stage of a six-year legal battle for equal pay.**
An employment tribunal said store staff, who are predominantly women, should not have been paid at lower rates than employees in warehouses, who are typically male.
Lawyers for the shop staff described the judgement as “hugely significant” and the amount of back-pay owed could amount to more than £30m.
However, Next said it would appeal against the ruling.
Next argued that pay rates for warehouse workers were higher than for retail workers in the wider labour market, justifying the different rates at the company.
But the employment tribunal rejected that argument as a justification for the pay difference.
It means women such as Helen Scarsbrook, who has worked for Next for more than 20 years, are in line to receive thousands of pounds of compensation for the pay they missed out on.
The 68-year-old from Eastleigh, near Southampton, one of the lead claimants in the case, said she was grateful that the tribunal had found in their favour.
“Anyone who works in retail knows that it is a physically and emotionally tough job,” she said.
“We do lots of heavy lifting, the same as the men do in the warehouse. We lift the same boxes they lift.”
**’Enjoyable but undervalued’**
Add to that the unpredictability of customers who are sometimes wonderful but sometimes challenging, she said.
“It’s an enjoyable job, but it’s not easy and it’s really undervalued financially and I just thought ‘it has to stop’,” she told the BBC.
Ms Scarsbrook put in her claim in 2018 and should receive compensation for being paid less than her male counterparts in the warehouse going back six years, to 2012.
It is likely to amount to several thousand pounds, which would let her pay off her car loan, take a “very nice” holiday or perhaps retire, she told the BBC.
Elizabeth George, barrister and partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing the workers, said the ruling would come as a “huge encouragement” to workers in other sectors.
“Retail isn’t the only sector where you have jobs that are divided along clear gender lines and you see the male-dominated market is attracting a higher rate than the female-dominated roles,” she said.
Workers at five of the UK’s largest supermarkets, Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op, are also pursuing equal pay cases, with the firms using the same arguments as Next around market pay rates to counter them.
Ms George said she believed the judgement could prompt further cases, for example in the care sector, hospitality or construction.
There have already been cases in the public sector over lower pay for workers, including teaching assistants and dinner ladies paid less than men employed in refuse collection and similar roles.
In a statement, Next said: “This is the first equal pay group action in the private sector to reach a decision at tribunal level and raises a number of important points of legal principle.”
The firm emphasised that no cases alleging direct discrimination against female staff were upheld and that the tribunal found “there was no conscious or sub-conscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates”.
More than 80% of Next’s store staff are women.
Barrister Ms George said: “[The tribunal] rightly found that Next could have afforded to pay a higher rate but chose not to and that the reason for that was purely financial.”
The argument around market rates was essentially “circular” Ms George said, suggesting women should be paid less because they were already currently being paid less elsewhere.
Leigh Day said that the claimants’ contracts would now be changed to reflect fairer rates of pay.
In other areas where there was a mismatch, for example over different ways of calculating night payments, paid rest breaks for warehouse staff and Sunday pay, better terms would also be extended to shop staff.
However, it was not yet clear whether other staff, not directly involved in the case, would see their employment terms upgraded automatically, she said.
The process of calculating what claimants were owed as back-pay should begin as soon as possible, said Ms George.
Dazzling-Attempt-967 on
Finally Birmingham are trend setters. First time for everything
NotAnAutoGenUser on
This is the most moronic logic, and shows how broken the system is. Equal pay for equal jobs, obviously – I’d hope nobody in 2024 thought otherwise.
But equalising pay on the basis of a field/line of work being dominated by one gender is just insanity. They’re fundamentally different jobs, with different conditions, different hours, and more to the point, very different levels of difficulty and effort.
I’m not saying warehouse workers *should* be paid more, or retail staff less, but fundamentally the market rate for each will differ.
Edit to add: On this basis, I assume the retail workers would have no issues with Next switching them around and mixing up the teams and sending a bunch to the warehouse. After all, it’s basically the same job.
alextremeee on
I’m not really sure I understand “dinner ladies being paid less than refuse workers who are men”? Who has decided this is a valid comparison?
Odd-Neighborhood8740 on
This is just madness and I struggle to see otherwise.
They are different jobs with different skillsets. One might even involve nights or operating machinery. There’s extra risk involved in a warehouse too.
If you want a warehouse salary why not work in the warehouse?
RNLImThalassophobic on
> Elizabeth George, barrister and partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing the workers, said the ruling would come as a “huge encouragement” to workers in other sectors.
> “Retail isn’t the only sector where you have jobs that are divided along clear gender lines and you see **the male-dominated market is attracting a higher rate than the female-dominated roles**,” she said.
Given that the tribunal found that there were no gender-based pay discrepancies, it’s disingenuous to phrase it this way around. It would appear that the higher-rate jobs are attracting more males because of the nature of the job – not that the male-dominated jobs are attracting more pay because of the gender of the workers.
> There have already been cases in the public sector over lower pay for workers, including teaching assistants and dinner ladies paid less than men employed in refuse collection and similar roles.
So why weren’t the women who are teaching assistants and dinner ladies going to work in refuse collection, where they could earn more? Is it perhaps because it’s a less desirable job, so needs more pay to encourage people to work there?
And if the pay becomes the same, will the big burly refuse collection men stand *any* chance of being hired as teaching assistants even though they almost certainly meet the minimum required levels of education etc?
> The argument around market rates was essentially “circular” Ms George said, suggesting women should be paid less because they were already currently being paid less elsewhere.
THIS is what it boils down to really.
Akkinak on
They are completely different jobs and shouldn’t be compared for salary, ASDA had a similar lawsuit but very few shop staff were willing to transfer over to the warehouse to get the ‘extra’ pay.
High-Tom-Titty on
One is more dangerous,worse hours, more physically demanding, in a non climate controlled building. The other you have to deal with customers. I’m still picking the former, but it was a bad ruling.
Frog-Stone on
Games gone
Frog-Stone on
Games gone
throw_it_further_ on
Rulings like this are a big part of why everything is so expensive in the U.K and why were are not competitive globally in so many sectors
The fact it’s dressed up in gender equality language boils my piss as it makes it easy to deflect valid criticism of this as sexism
ConnectPreference166 on
Worked at next for 5 months and it was hell on earth. Everyone there deserves more pay.
penguinsfrommars on
The main difference that strikes me is that there’s a danger element present in a warehouse in your everyday work – danger of serious injury, and danger of death. Potentially dangerous machinery is present – especially forklifts. Heavy palettes. That element of risk doesn’t really have an equivalent on the shop floor. On that basis, this ruling makes no sense to me. More danger in a job should equal higher pay imo.
Bananasonfire on
Surely if warehouse work is harder than retail work, then all the warehouse workers will now be going for the retail jobs, because now they get paid the same regardless? Easier work for the same pay sounds like a deal too good to resist.
bellpunk on
everyone in this thread arguing that ‘they’re different jobs – they do different things!’ should’ve submitted their application to be next’s lawyers on this case. surely the company about to pay out thousands of pounds and reevaluate its pay structure should’ve thought of this simple winner
Aryus_2030 on
Lol, why don’t they work in the warehouse if they want the same pay as the men in there ? Oh, that’s right, it’s harder.
Tight_Excitement_409 on
I’m a plumber, and I have noticed I don’t get paid the same as a barrister. I think I should put in a claim, we’re both skilled workers right.
Uniform764 on
Equal work for equal pay is entirely proper as a principle enshrined in law.
Working in a warehouse and working on the shop floor are totally different job roles.
Tranquilwhirlpool on
What about the men that work in the shopfloor at Next?
Presumably if the claim is won in the courts and backpay is awarded, those (admittedly fewer) men who work in the shops would have been underpaid with respect to their female counterparts. They would have literally done the same job and been paid less- I don’t practice law but I think even I could win that case.
Maybe everyone in the country will be on the same wage in 10 years.
bobblebob100 on
Ive always found the NHS pay bands abit strange. Bottom of say Band 5 compared to top is about £5.5k difference in wage when everyone on that team will do the same work
Yea i get its due to those at the top having more experience of Band 5 work, but thats not always the case if its a new team set up and brand new processes. You do the same job whether you have 1yr experience or 3
bertiebasit on
Done both jobs…given the choice, shop floor is easy work in comparison. Warehouse work is hard and I’d expect to get paid more.
mantrayantra1969 on
Do the head office workers (nearly all women) get paid more than warehouse (very slightly more men)? If so could warehouse not put in claim for equal pay? If shop floor = warehouse then warehouse = head office. Then everyone ( and I assume top brass too) would get paid the same per hour. I am sure they will argue different because per hour versus salary but the tribunal outcome is mad and this could get through too.
Hicko11 on
I don’t know about you lot but Im fully behind this. Why am I not getting the same pay as the CEO of the company I work for? Is it because I’m male and she’s female??
Im going to ask for a pay rise or sue for discrimination
tistick on
But men work in retail on the shop floor too. Not sure how it’s gender discrimination, when by Next’s own account, they are hiring more women for shop floor roles.
like-humans-do on
this equal pay stuff has went mental, what sort of fucked up mental gymnastics are at play in these cases where two entirely different roles are being treated as equal just because one is male dominated and the other female dominated?
b1ld3rb3rg on
Shop floor work is basically warehouse work but you have to deal with the general public and all the complications that brings.
Bizzlington on
I used to work at Next warehouse.
The base pay was quite low – IIRC it was just *slightly* above minimum wage – but there is a bonus scheme which is based on performance.
e.g. everything you do is tracked and the more items you pick/pack/load/unload/etc will earn you more money. And some people really did work their arses off to get the extra moneys. some people were happy to go at a bit more of a relaxed pace.
So i don’t even know how this came about since the difference in pay between a high performer and a low performer can be quite high.
Or at least this was the case a fair few years ago.
ScorpioLady91 on
I worked there from 2014-2018 how do I check if I’m eligible?
28 Comments
**More than 3,500 current and former workers at Next have won the final stage of a six-year legal battle for equal pay.**
An employment tribunal said store staff, who are predominantly women, should not have been paid at lower rates than employees in warehouses, who are typically male.
Lawyers for the shop staff described the judgement as “hugely significant” and the amount of back-pay owed could amount to more than £30m.
However, Next said it would appeal against the ruling.
Next argued that pay rates for warehouse workers were higher than for retail workers in the wider labour market, justifying the different rates at the company.
But the employment tribunal rejected that argument as a justification for the pay difference.
It means women such as Helen Scarsbrook, who has worked for Next for more than 20 years, are in line to receive thousands of pounds of compensation for the pay they missed out on.
The 68-year-old from Eastleigh, near Southampton, one of the lead claimants in the case, said she was grateful that the tribunal had found in their favour.
“Anyone who works in retail knows that it is a physically and emotionally tough job,” she said.
“We do lots of heavy lifting, the same as the men do in the warehouse. We lift the same boxes they lift.”
**’Enjoyable but undervalued’**
Add to that the unpredictability of customers who are sometimes wonderful but sometimes challenging, she said.
“It’s an enjoyable job, but it’s not easy and it’s really undervalued financially and I just thought ‘it has to stop’,” she told the BBC.
Ms Scarsbrook put in her claim in 2018 and should receive compensation for being paid less than her male counterparts in the warehouse going back six years, to 2012.
It is likely to amount to several thousand pounds, which would let her pay off her car loan, take a “very nice” holiday or perhaps retire, she told the BBC.
Elizabeth George, barrister and partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing the workers, said the ruling would come as a “huge encouragement” to workers in other sectors.
“Retail isn’t the only sector where you have jobs that are divided along clear gender lines and you see the male-dominated market is attracting a higher rate than the female-dominated roles,” she said.
Workers at five of the UK’s largest supermarkets, Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op, are also pursuing equal pay cases, with the firms using the same arguments as Next around market pay rates to counter them.
Ms George said she believed the judgement could prompt further cases, for example in the care sector, hospitality or construction.
There have already been cases in the public sector over lower pay for workers, including teaching assistants and dinner ladies paid less than men employed in refuse collection and similar roles.
In a statement, Next said: “This is the first equal pay group action in the private sector to reach a decision at tribunal level and raises a number of important points of legal principle.”
The firm emphasised that no cases alleging direct discrimination against female staff were upheld and that the tribunal found “there was no conscious or sub-conscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates”.
More than 80% of Next’s store staff are women.
Barrister Ms George said: “[The tribunal] rightly found that Next could have afforded to pay a higher rate but chose not to and that the reason for that was purely financial.”
The argument around market rates was essentially “circular” Ms George said, suggesting women should be paid less because they were already currently being paid less elsewhere.
Leigh Day said that the claimants’ contracts would now be changed to reflect fairer rates of pay.
In other areas where there was a mismatch, for example over different ways of calculating night payments, paid rest breaks for warehouse staff and Sunday pay, better terms would also be extended to shop staff.
However, it was not yet clear whether other staff, not directly involved in the case, would see their employment terms upgraded automatically, she said.
The process of calculating what claimants were owed as back-pay should begin as soon as possible, said Ms George.
Finally Birmingham are trend setters. First time for everything
This is the most moronic logic, and shows how broken the system is. Equal pay for equal jobs, obviously – I’d hope nobody in 2024 thought otherwise.
But equalising pay on the basis of a field/line of work being dominated by one gender is just insanity. They’re fundamentally different jobs, with different conditions, different hours, and more to the point, very different levels of difficulty and effort.
I’m not saying warehouse workers *should* be paid more, or retail staff less, but fundamentally the market rate for each will differ.
Edit to add: On this basis, I assume the retail workers would have no issues with Next switching them around and mixing up the teams and sending a bunch to the warehouse. After all, it’s basically the same job.
I’m not really sure I understand “dinner ladies being paid less than refuse workers who are men”? Who has decided this is a valid comparison?
This is just madness and I struggle to see otherwise.
They are different jobs with different skillsets. One might even involve nights or operating machinery. There’s extra risk involved in a warehouse too.
If you want a warehouse salary why not work in the warehouse?
> Elizabeth George, barrister and partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing the workers, said the ruling would come as a “huge encouragement” to workers in other sectors.
> “Retail isn’t the only sector where you have jobs that are divided along clear gender lines and you see **the male-dominated market is attracting a higher rate than the female-dominated roles**,” she said.
Given that the tribunal found that there were no gender-based pay discrepancies, it’s disingenuous to phrase it this way around. It would appear that the higher-rate jobs are attracting more males because of the nature of the job – not that the male-dominated jobs are attracting more pay because of the gender of the workers.
> There have already been cases in the public sector over lower pay for workers, including teaching assistants and dinner ladies paid less than men employed in refuse collection and similar roles.
So why weren’t the women who are teaching assistants and dinner ladies going to work in refuse collection, where they could earn more? Is it perhaps because it’s a less desirable job, so needs more pay to encourage people to work there?
And if the pay becomes the same, will the big burly refuse collection men stand *any* chance of being hired as teaching assistants even though they almost certainly meet the minimum required levels of education etc?
> The argument around market rates was essentially “circular” Ms George said, suggesting women should be paid less because they were already currently being paid less elsewhere.
THIS is what it boils down to really.
They are completely different jobs and shouldn’t be compared for salary, ASDA had a similar lawsuit but very few shop staff were willing to transfer over to the warehouse to get the ‘extra’ pay.
One is more dangerous,worse hours, more physically demanding, in a non climate controlled building. The other you have to deal with customers. I’m still picking the former, but it was a bad ruling.
Games gone
Games gone
Rulings like this are a big part of why everything is so expensive in the U.K and why were are not competitive globally in so many sectors
The fact it’s dressed up in gender equality language boils my piss as it makes it easy to deflect valid criticism of this as sexism
Worked at next for 5 months and it was hell on earth. Everyone there deserves more pay.
The main difference that strikes me is that there’s a danger element present in a warehouse in your everyday work – danger of serious injury, and danger of death. Potentially dangerous machinery is present – especially forklifts. Heavy palettes. That element of risk doesn’t really have an equivalent on the shop floor. On that basis, this ruling makes no sense to me. More danger in a job should equal higher pay imo.
Surely if warehouse work is harder than retail work, then all the warehouse workers will now be going for the retail jobs, because now they get paid the same regardless? Easier work for the same pay sounds like a deal too good to resist.
everyone in this thread arguing that ‘they’re different jobs – they do different things!’ should’ve submitted their application to be next’s lawyers on this case. surely the company about to pay out thousands of pounds and reevaluate its pay structure should’ve thought of this simple winner
Lol, why don’t they work in the warehouse if they want the same pay as the men in there ? Oh, that’s right, it’s harder.
I’m a plumber, and I have noticed I don’t get paid the same as a barrister. I think I should put in a claim, we’re both skilled workers right.
Equal work for equal pay is entirely proper as a principle enshrined in law.
Working in a warehouse and working on the shop floor are totally different job roles.
What about the men that work in the shopfloor at Next?
Presumably if the claim is won in the courts and backpay is awarded, those (admittedly fewer) men who work in the shops would have been underpaid with respect to their female counterparts. They would have literally done the same job and been paid less- I don’t practice law but I think even I could win that case.
Maybe everyone in the country will be on the same wage in 10 years.
Ive always found the NHS pay bands abit strange. Bottom of say Band 5 compared to top is about £5.5k difference in wage when everyone on that team will do the same work
Yea i get its due to those at the top having more experience of Band 5 work, but thats not always the case if its a new team set up and brand new processes. You do the same job whether you have 1yr experience or 3
Done both jobs…given the choice, shop floor is easy work in comparison. Warehouse work is hard and I’d expect to get paid more.
Do the head office workers (nearly all women) get paid more than warehouse (very slightly more men)? If so could warehouse not put in claim for equal pay? If shop floor = warehouse then warehouse = head office. Then everyone ( and I assume top brass too) would get paid the same per hour. I am sure they will argue different because per hour versus salary but the tribunal outcome is mad and this could get through too.
I don’t know about you lot but Im fully behind this. Why am I not getting the same pay as the CEO of the company I work for? Is it because I’m male and she’s female??
Im going to ask for a pay rise or sue for discrimination
But men work in retail on the shop floor too. Not sure how it’s gender discrimination, when by Next’s own account, they are hiring more women for shop floor roles.
this equal pay stuff has went mental, what sort of fucked up mental gymnastics are at play in these cases where two entirely different roles are being treated as equal just because one is male dominated and the other female dominated?
Shop floor work is basically warehouse work but you have to deal with the general public and all the complications that brings.
I used to work at Next warehouse.
The base pay was quite low – IIRC it was just *slightly* above minimum wage – but there is a bonus scheme which is based on performance.
e.g. everything you do is tracked and the more items you pick/pack/load/unload/etc will earn you more money. And some people really did work their arses off to get the extra moneys. some people were happy to go at a bit more of a relaxed pace.
So i don’t even know how this came about since the difference in pay between a high performer and a low performer can be quite high.
Or at least this was the case a fair few years ago.
I worked there from 2014-2018 how do I check if I’m eligible?