10th September 2026
Can two people be doing jobs of equal value but quite legitimately be paid different amounts?
That is the awkward question sitting behind the latest ruling in the long-running equal pay battle involving retailer Next.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a key part of a 2024 decision which had found that Next could not justify paying its predominantly male warehouse workers a higher basic rate than its predominantly female shop workers. The appeal tribunal has now accepted that market forces and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining warehouse staff could justify the difference.
For more than 3,500 workers originally involved in the case, that is a significant setback. The 2024 ruling had potentially opened the way to more than £30 million in back pay.
But there is an important distinction.
The tribunal has not said that warehouse workers are more valuable than shop workers. The earlier finding that the two groups performed work of equal value was not overturned.
Instead, it has effectively said that the value of a job and the price needed to recruit someone to do it are not necessarily the same thing.
That is a much more complicated principle.
Supply and demand enters the workplace
Imagine an employer needs 100 warehouse workers but can only recruit them by offering £14 an hour.
If it offered £12, people might simply go elsewhere.
Meanwhile, it might be able to recruit shop workers at £12 because there are more people willing to take those jobs.
Should the employer be forced to pay both groups £14 simply because the jobs have been assessed as being of equal value?
Next argued that it should not.
The Appeal Tribunal accepted that argument, finding that the higher warehouse pay reflected genuine recruitment and retention pressures rather than sex discrimination. Both the original tribunal and the appeal tribunal found no direct sex discrimination in Next's pay-setting arrangements.
That could have consequences far beyond Next.
A problem for other retailers
Next is not the only retailer facing equal-pay claims.
Similar cases involve thousands of workers at companies including Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons. The central argument in many of these disputes is similar: predominantly female shop workers claim they have been paid less than predominantly male warehouse workers despite the jobs being of equal value.
The Next ruling gives employers a much stronger argument.
If they can demonstrate a genuine labour-market reason for paying one group more, they may be able to defend a difference in basic pay.
That does not mean an employer can simply say, "warehouse workers are harder to find" and end the argument.
The tribunal's decision was based on the particular evidence in the Next case. Employers still have to demonstrate that the reason for the difference is genuine and legally capable of justifying it.
But there is another side
The workers' representatives argue that this approach could allow existing gender pay differences to become self-perpetuating.
If an occupation is traditionally dominated by men and employers have to pay more to attract workers, wages rise.
If another occupation is traditionally dominated by women and employers can recruit more easily, wages remain lower.
The market then reinforces the difference.
That creates an uncomfortable possibility.
Could a labour market which already reflects historical patterns of employment end up determining what people are legally entitled to earn?
That is the concern behind the workers' intention to challenge the basic-pay decision further.
Equal pay does not mean identical pay
There is also a useful lesson here for employees generally.
Equal pay law does not mean that every employee in a company must receive exactly the same hourly rate.
Jobs can legitimately attract different pay where there are objective and legally acceptable reasons.
What makes the Next case important is that the workers' jobs have already been found to be of equal value.
The argument is therefore no longer simply about whether the jobs are comparable.
It is about whether market conditions can justify paying people differently even after the jobs have been assessed as being of equal value.
The Appeal Tribunal has answered yes, at least in the circumstances of this case.
The real question is what happens next
This may not be the final word.
The shop workers' representatives have said they intend to challenge the basic-pay decision, while Next is itself appealing some of the findings that went against it, including issues concerning overtime, night premiums and paid rest breaks.
So the legal battle continues.
But the principle established by the latest decision is already significant.
It recognises something that businesses have always understood: wages are affected by supply and demand.
The difficult part is deciding how far that economic reality should be allowed to influence equal-pay law.
If two jobs are genuinely worth the same to an employer, should the people doing them receive the same basic pay?
Or should an employer be allowed to pay more for one simply because those workers are harder to recruit?
There is no easy answer.
Paying different rates can be economically rational.
But allowing market forces to explain persistent differences between predominantly male and predominantly female work can also raise uncomfortable questions about whether today's labour market is simply reproducing yesterday's inequalities.
The Next case has therefore moved the debate beyond the simple slogan of "equal pay for equal work."
The harder question now is:
Does equal value mean equal pay — or can the market put a different price on the same value?