Tesco Equal Pay Claims: Tribunal Misdirection Alleged in 47,000-Claim Case
Tesco faces scrutiny as the Employment Appeal Tribunal considers claims of misdirection in the ongoing equal pay dispute, involving thousands of employees.
• public
Tesco Faces Appeal Over Equal Pay Dispute: Tribunal's Approach Questioned
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is reviewing aspects of a long-running equal pay claim brought against Tesco by over 47,000 current and former employees. The case (Tesco Stores Limited v Ms K Element & Others) centres on whether work in Tesco stores is of equal value to work in their warehouses. Claims were first commenced in 2018, and are split into three tranches. None of the claims have been determined and is troubling for the Judge, given the relative simplicity of the claims.
Grounds for Appeal: Legal Errors Alleged
Tesco has launched an appeal against initial rulings, alleging that the Employment Tribunal (ET) made several errors of law during earlier 'equal value' hearings. Key grounds include allegations that the ET:
- Misdirected itself on its function during the 'stage 2 equal value' hearing.
- Placed undue emphasis on training documents as primary evidence, rather than considering 'what is done in practice'.
- Focused on generic jobs rather than the actual work of individual employees.
- Failed to resolve all relevant factual disagreements between the parties.
- Improperly changed its approach to determining facts after the Stage 2 hearing.
Exclusion of Evidence and Other Concerns
The EAT is also considering whether the ET erred by excluding certain evidence, particularly data, and whether it failed to make adequate findings of fact about training received by employees. Additional areas of concern revolve around the ET's handling of time pressures, workplace relationships, performance targets, and various aspects of the working environment.
Overriding Objective and Future Proceedings
His Honour Judge James Tayler expressed “profound disquiet” about the progress of the litigation, stressing the need for parties to comply with the overriding objective to assist the Tribunal. The Judge noted the need for focus on key disputes and the use of resources to clarify and simplify the issues. The EAT has deemed several grounds of appeal as “reasonably arguable” and has scheduled a full hearing for further analysis.
Read the entire judgement here: Tesco Stores Limited v Ms K Element & Others (All Claimants represented by Leigh Day and Harcus Parker) [2025] EAT 45
