⚖️ Your training manuals could be used as evidence in an equal pay claim

What is it?

The Court of Appeal has handed down a significant ruling in Tesco Stores v Element and Others, one of the largest equal pay cases in UK legal history. Around 34,000 store-based claimants, mostly women, argued that their work was of equal value to that of predominantly male employees in Tesco's distribution centres, in claims said to be worth several billions of pounds.

At the heart of the appeal was a question that matters to any employer with structured, documented roles: what does "work" actually mean for the purposes of an equal pay claim?

What you need to know

Rather than relying primarily on witness evidence, the Employment Tribunal concluded that Tesco's detailed training manuals and operational documents provided the best evidence of what employees' jobs actually entailed, reasoning that Tesco operated in a heavily regulated and standardised environment with highly detailed and prescriptive training material.

Tesco challenged this, arguing that tribunals should focus on what employees actually do in practice, not what training documents say they should do. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

The Court upheld the tribunal's approach, recognising that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment and uses detailed training materials to ensure work is carried out consistently. It accepted that Tesco had a strong business need for roles to be performed consistently across its operations, and that its training materials could properly reflect that.

Crucially, the tribunal did not treat the training materials as the final word. It remained open to evidence that the documents did not reflect reality, which meant its approach was legally sound.

The Court of Appeal also provided guidance that tribunals in large-scale equal pay litigation may, in appropriate cases, assess jobs more generically rather than requiring each claim to be examined on an overly individualised basis.

It is worth noting that this case is still live. The Court of Appeal ruling deals specifically with the methodology used to assess the work, but the wider question of whether Tesco can justify the pay difference between the two groups has not yet been resolved. The material factor defence hearing is ongoing, so there will be further developments to follow.

What it means for your business

For any business with structured roles, the precedent is plain: your own training materials and operating manuals may be used as evidence against you.

If your training documents say a role requires X, Y and Z, a tribunal can reasonably treat that as evidence of what the job demands, even if day-to-day reality looks different. That cuts both ways. If your manuals overstate demands, or understate them in roles that carry more responsibility than the paperwork suggests, that gap could become a problem in an equal pay dispute.

This case is also a reminder that equal pay risk does not only sit with large retailers. Any employer with male and female employees doing different but potentially comparable roles, and where pay differs between them, should be thinking about how they would justify that difference if challenged.

How Lansbury HR can help

We can help you review your job documentation, training materials and pay structures to identify where equal pay risk might be sitting. Whether that is an equal pay audit, a review of how roles are described and valued, or guidance on what a defensible pay framework looks like, we are here to help. Get in touch to find out more.

#EqualPay #EmploymentLaw #UKEmploymentLaw #GenderPayGap #HRSupport #EqualityAct #PeopleManagement #LansburyHR

Sources & further reading:

👉 Case tracker: Tesco Stores Ltd v Element and Others (Outer Temple Chambers) 👉 Court of Appeal ruling overview: Retail Gazette 👉 Employer implications: Business Matters Magazine 👉 Full EAT judgment (July 2025): National Archives Case Law