The store staff members who have filed the claim will now receive compensation in the form of back pay, dating back up to six years from when they initially submitted their claims, including the time that has passed since then. The initial claims were lodged in 2018.
Moreover, their basic hourly pay terms will be automatically aligned in their current contracts. This victory also entails granting the store staff paid rest breaks, as well as equal Sunday, Night, and Overtime Premiums in accordance with similar terms in the warehouse contracts.
The Tribunal will now assess the compensation (backpay) for the claimants. Only those who have filed claims are eligible for compensation for lost wages and will have their contracts automatically adjusted. Leigh Day continues to submit claims for Sales Consultants who were not part of the original 3,500, with an anticipated significant rise in claims in the upcoming weeks and months post the favorable ruling.
Helen Scarsbrook, aged 68 and a resident of Eastleigh near Southampton, with over 20 years of service at Next, and one of the three lead claimants representing all sales consultants in the claim, expressed, “We have achieved equal pay for Next sales consultants. It has been a lengthy six-year struggle for the fair pay we believed we were entitled to, but today we can proudly say that we have achieved our goal.”
“Anyone in the retail sector understands the physically and emotionally demanding nature of the job. Customer service, in particular, is highly challenging, and we perform this alongside numerous other essential tasks that contribute to Next’s success. Being accustomed to undervalued work, self-doubt may easily arise. I am grateful to the judges for recognizing the true worth of our jobs – they are indeed equal.”
Elizabeth George, partner at Leigh Day and barrister representing the successful claimants, commented, “Helen and her colleagues have accomplished something of great significance. This is precisely the kind of pay discrimination that the equal pay legislation was designed to combat.”
“In cases where female-dominated roles are paid less than male-dominated roles despite the work being equal, employers cannot justify paying women less simply by referring to market rates. This verdict confirms that employers must provide further justification for differential pay rates.”
“The Tribunal rightly concluded that Next could have afforded to pay a higher rate but opted not to, citing purely financial reasons. Helen and her numerous colleagues displayed courage and perseverance in bringing forward these claims and seeing them through to a successful resolution. I am genuinely pleased for them.”
“It is important to emphasize that the financial compensation they are now entitled to receive is not a windfall. It is the pay they rightfully deserved if Next had adhered to its equal pay obligations.”
