Ruling on how tribunals should assess the value of shop worker roles compared to distribution centre workers

A recent Court of Appeal judgment in Tesco Stores Ltd v Element & Others has significant implications for employers facing equal pay claims, particularly those operating in highly standardised or tightly prescribed working environments. The decision underscores how tribunals may determine what “work” actually is for the purpose of comparing roles, and it highlights the evidential weight that an employer’s own documentation can carry.

The case involved around 34,000 predominantly female store workers who argued that their roles were of equal value to those of male colleagues working in Tesco’s distribution centres. Tesco is required to justify paying the predominantly female store workers less than predominantly male distribution centre workers.

After a lengthy 36‑day hearing, the employment tribunal took an approach that surprised many: it placed limited reliance on witness testimony and the job descriptions produced by both parties. Instead, it treated Tesco’s training manuals as the most reliable evidence of what each job required.

The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether this approach was correct. Its conclusions provide important guidance for employers:

• What “work” means – The Court confirmed that “work” is defined by the wage/work bargain. It is what the employer requires an employee to do, not simply the tasks they may perform on a particular day
• Training manuals as primary evidence – In workplaces where roles are highly regulated, scripted or standardised, tribunals are entitled to treat training manuals and operational guides as the most objective starting point for understanding job content
• Manuals are not conclusive – The tribunal had not treated the manuals as determinative. It remained open to strong evidence that day‑to‑day reality differed from what was documented. This balanced approach was upheld

For employers, the message is clear: if your organisation relies on detailed training materials or standard operating procedures, these documents may carry more weight than witness evidence in any dispute about what a job involved.

This case concerned equal pay litigation, but could also be relevant in a redundancy scenario, where the parties may dispute what the job involved and therefore the basis for redundancy.  Any gap between what is written and what happens in practice can create significant litigation risk.

Our Employment team can support employers by reviewing contracts, job description and operating manuals for equal pay exposure, aligning job documentation with operational reality, ensuring your organisation is protected before a claim ever arises. Please get in touch if we can help.