Tesco has suffered a major setback in the long-running fight for equal pay by tens of thousands of its shop floor workers, after the Court of Appeal challenged the supermarket's way of how the Employment Tribunal assessed the amount of work carried out by its customer service assistants.
In a judgment issued on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Britain's largest grocer against the Tribunal's approach to determining the facts of the work of customer assistants and warehouse workers, a key step in the so-called “fair value” underpinning the entire dispute.
The decision comes in the middle of a separate Employment Tribunal hearing in which Tesco is trying to justify paying its female store staff less than its male staff. The supermarket is leaning heavily on the argument that the difference reflects “market prices”, defense lawyers at Leigh Day, who act for more than 16,000 claimants, insist they have no legal standing.
At the heart of the appeal was Tesco's attempt to stop the Tribunal from relying on the company's training manuals and operating manuals to determine what customer assistants and warehouse staff are required to do on a day-to-day basis. For Britain's SME employers and shopkeepers looking closely, the Court of Appeal's response will make for uncomfortable reading.
The judges agreed with the Tribunal's approach, accepting that Tesco operates in a highly controlled environment, uses sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains comprehensive training materials precisely to ensure that work is carried out consistently in all its stores. The Court found that Tesco had a “strong business need” for these roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations, and that, without clear evidence to the contrary, its training documents could reasonably be taken to determine what employees were required to do.
The effects extend beyond Welwyn Garden City. The decision rejects attempts to force thousands of workers with equal pay claims to individually prove all the notes and parts of their roles when the employer himself has evaluated the work. For any business with a structured operating model, supermarkets, tourist chains, transport operators and the wider SME retail community, the example is clear: your training materials and operating manuals can be used as evidence against you.
The Court of Appeal reiterated previous criticism of Tesco's evidence approach, raising concerns about both the nature and presentation of witness evidence used during the trial. Further to large employers, the judgment provided new guidance for courts of equal pay claims, where appropriate, to examine jobs in general rather than insisting that each claim be decided on an excessively separate basis, an explanation that could significantly reduce the delay and procedural complexity that often accompany these disputes.
Kiran Daurka, a colleague at Leigh Day, said the decision was an important moment for access to justice. “The Court of Appeal recognized the importance of removing unnecessary barriers that prevent everyday people from obtaining justice in equal pay cases,” she said. “This decision is a welcome explanation that, in large cases involving complex defendants such as Tesco and other large retailers, the courts can take an efficient and equitable approach to assessing activities, thereby reducing the unnecessary burden of delaying or preventing claims.
“Our clients have always been adamant that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make it impossible to claim equal pay. This decision will help future claims progress in an easier and more accessible way.”
For Tesco, and for every employer that has employees who split between front-of-house and back-of-house work, the message from the Court of Appeal is not clear. The defense of “it's just what the market pays” is fading, and documents sitting on a company's intranet may provide the strongest evidence they'll ever need.
