Tesco is the latest major supermarket to face a large equal pay claim, joining other big names in the retail sector that have already had to defend differences in pay between store and warehouse staff.

The claim, which dates back to 2018, has been brought by store workers, most of whom are women. They argue that they have been paid less than warehouse workers, most of whom are men, even though their work is of equal value.

Reports suggest that some Tesco store workers may have been paid up to £5.50 per hour less than colleagues working in warehouses. Tesco’s argument is that the difference reflects market conditions and operational needs. In other words, it says warehouse roles have to be paid more because of the demands of the labour market.

The claimants are likely to challenge that. They may argue that “market rates” are not simply something outside Tesco’s control, particularly given Tesco’s size and influence in the sector.

Under the Equality Act 2010, men and women should receive equal pay where they are doing equal work. That does not just mean identical jobs. It can also include different jobs, which are found to be of equal value, based on factors such as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

This is why these supermarket claims matter. Store work and warehouse work may look very different, but the legal question is whether they are of equal value and, if so, whether the employer can justify the pay difference.

The Tesco claim involves around 60,000 workers seeking up to six years’ back pay. If successful, the cost to Tesco could run into billions of pounds. It could also have a major impact on pay structures across the wider retail sector.

For employers, the lesson is clear: pay differences need to be explainable and evidenced. Relying on “market forces” may not be enough on its own. Businesses should be able to show why different roles are paid differently, how those decisions were made, and whether any gender imbalance exists between lower-paid and higher-paid groups.

Employers with separate teams, sites or divisions – for example, stores, warehouses, manufacturing, logistics or office functions – should keep pay structures under review. Historic pay arrangements can become risky if they are not regularly assessed.

The Tesco case is expected to be heard over five weeks, with a decision anticipated later this year. Whatever the outcome, it is a timely reminder that equal pay risk is not limited to employees doing the same job. It can arise wherever different roles are paid differently, and those roles are divided along gender lines.

Written by Sarah Filsell, Associate Employment Solicitor.

If you are an Employer or business owner and you would like to find out more please contact Sarah today on

01256 854658

[email protected]