x.com/maxtempers/status/2050282334495056184
1 correction found
for the crime of paying different jobs different salaries
That is not what UK equal-pay law says. The Tesco case is about whether store and distribution-centre roles are legally "equal work" or "work of equal value," and whether any pay difference can be justified without relying on sex.
Full reasoning
UK law does not make it unlawful in general to pay different jobs different rates.
Under section 65 of the Equality Act 2010, work counts as "equal work" only if it is like work, rated as equivalent, or of equal value. In other words, the law is not a blanket ban on different pay for different jobs; it targets situations where men and women are paid differently for work the law treats as equal.
Acas's official guidance says the same thing: men and women must get equal pay for doing "equal work", and it expressly notes that differences in pay might be allowed in some circumstances, so long as the reason has nothing to do with sex.
That is also how the Tesco litigation is described in the tribunal materials. The official Employment Appeal Tribunal summary describes the case as an equal pay case, and the published case materials describe it as being brought by mainly female store-based Tesco employees who compare themselves with better-paid, mainly male operatives in Tesco's distribution centres on the basis that their work is of equal value.
So the post's wording is misleading: Tesco is not being sued merely because it paid different jobs different salaries. The legal issue is whether those roles are legally comparable as equal work / work of equal value, and if so whether Tesco has a lawful non-sex-based explanation for any pay difference.
3 sources
- Equality Act 2010, section 65
"A's work is equal to that of B if it is— (a) like B's work, (b) rated as equivalent to B's work, or (c) of equal value to B's work."
- Equal pay and the law - Acas
"By law, men and women must get equal pay for doing 'equal work'... Differences in pay and other terms and conditions might be allowed in some circumstances... Getting paid more must have nothing to do with someone's sex."
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Ms K Element and Others (all claimants represented by Leigh Day and Harcus Parker Employment): [2025] EAT 112 - GOV.UK
Official Employment Appeal Tribunal decision page for the long-running Tesco equal pay litigation; the associated case materials describe mainly female store-based Tesco employees comparing themselves with better-paid, mainly male distribution-centre operatives on the basis that their work is of equal value.