K and ors v Tesco Stores Ltd: Another Key Decision in the Fight for Equal Pay

On 3 June 2021, another key decision in the current sea of equal claim cases was announced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).  The case, K and ors v Tesco Stores Ltd, which, as you may have guessed, was a claim against another UK supermarket heavyweight – Tesco. 


Similar to the facts of the Asda case, (which we reported on here) approximately 6,000 current and former Tesco shop floor workers, predominately women, brought proceedings against Tesco in the employment tribunal on the grounds that they did not receive equal pay for work of equal value when compared to their, predominately male, colleagues in its distribution and warehouse centres.  The shop floor workers were paid up to £3 an hour less than the distribution centre and warehouse workers.

The Law

Under EU law, more specifically Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), male and female workers must have their pay and conditions set by a "single source" before they can make comparisons for equal pay purposes.  This means that if there is a single body responsible for ensuring equality, in this case Tesco, roles within that body can be compared in relation to equal pay.  However, under the Equality Act 2010, a more detailed assessment of the similarity of contractual terms and conditions of the roles is necessary. Tesco argued the very technical point that the workers could not rely on Article 157 because they were claiming their work was of equal value to their distribution and warehouse comparators whereas Article 157 was concerned with equal work, a slightly different category in equal pay litigation.

To seek clarification on whether Article 157 could be relied upon, the Employment Tribunal referred the dispute up to the ECJ, when the UK was still a member of the European Union.


As a preliminary point, the ECJ confirmed that it has jurisdiction, despite the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, to provide clarification on this matter. 

The ECJ then confirmed that where pay conditions can be attributed to a single source, the work and pay of those workers can be compared, even if they work in different establishments.  The Court went on to conclude that the principle laid down by Article 157 can be relied upon directly by the UK courts when dealing with work of equal value claims. 

What does this mean?

This latest decision reinforces the position that the roles of shop floor workers can be compared with those of their colleagues in distribution centres and, therefore, comes as another devastating blow to the UK supermarkets embroiled in long-running equal pay disputes. 

The outcome of this case also delivers a post-Brexit boost by confirming that, despite the UK withdrawal from the EU, EU law can still very much be relied upon.

The case will now return to a UK employment tribunal to determine whether the work done by the workers and their comparators is in fact of equal value and the reasons behind the pay discrepancy. Due to the complexity of this case, it’s likely to be several years before a final conclusion is reached.

How can we help?

If you have any questions about what this judgment means for you or your organisation, please get in touch with our Employment team.

This article was co-written by Sarah Milne, Trainee Solicitor.

Latest updates from @MacRoberts

  • Would you like to work at one of Scotland’s leading law firms? We currently have a number of opportunities availabl… https://t.co/atxn5NHzLj 21/06/2021
  • We currently have a vacancy for a Customer Due Diligence Administrator based in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Please shar… https://t.co/IXsvMkBnYa 18/06/2021
  • Maya Forstater received a lot of media attention around her tweets relating to her beliefs about sex, resulting in… https://t.co/VbDAGhzAqX 18/06/2021
  • Applications for our traineeships starting in 2023 are now open! Get your legal career off to the best possible sta… https://t.co/nx3WmygTTM 18/06/2021
  • RT @DundeeAndAngus: Leading Scottish commercial law firm, @MacRoberts has advised BAM on the ‘game-changing’ Atlantic Square development in… 16/06/2021
  • This week on our new IGTV mini-series, giving an insight into what it’s like to begin a legal career during the pan… https://t.co/tqSQy4tRqG 16/06/2021
  • Self-employed status: What does the Uber case really mean? 🚖 Kenny Scott explains what the recent ruling means for… https://t.co/SIt6iBNYPx 16/06/2021
  • What is the Scottish #gin industry doing to improve #sustainability? Following #WorldGinDay celebrations over the w… https://t.co/P4d0oPh54U 15/06/2021
  • The European Commission has adopted & published versions of two new sets of Standard Contractual Clauses. What ch… https://t.co/c8nMQEo6uk 15/06/2021
  • What impact could Ireland High Court's decision to reject an action by Facebook to block an inquiry by the Irish… https://t.co/leiseQnxYe 14/06/2021
  • Wishing all of our followers a happy #WorldGinDay! ICYMI: Earlier this week, we were delighted to catch up with… https://t.co/OJ85qOwAhN 12/06/2021
  • We're #hiring! We have a #vacancy for a Senior #Solicitor or Associate to join our IP, Technology & Commercial team… https://t.co/YWbpcD0eFD 10/06/2021
  • Dealing with an employee's misconduct when that employee contends it is linked to a disability can be tricky - read… https://t.co/Gy1dLbrwPk 09/06/2021
  • MacRoberts' have launched a new IGTV mini-series, giving an insight into what it’s like to begin a legal career dur… https://t.co/yJ5RQRatPn 09/06/2021
  • Scotland's new #landownership transparency register - the Register of Persons Holding a Controlled Interest in Land… https://t.co/PrZ5AwH2Ej 09/06/2021