UK supermarket Asda loses latest round of equal pay case Watch

ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by DSilva)
Well you seem to be in this case. This judgement would give some rather poorly paid people some very welcome backpay.
That's an issue for the minimum wage, and presumably ASDA didn't breach that else they'd have bene in a lot of trouble a lot sooner. If you don't think it's high enough, then it's not just ASDA cashiers involved in that.

The same reasoning you are using could be applied to the distribution staff, should ASDA claw back the extra money they paid those workers?
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by zhog)
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-as...-idUKKCN1PP1JH

It's not the same thing to work in a warehouse pushing cages in and out in the middle of the night (mostly men) and sitting at the till in the warm at daytime (mostly women). The justice system have been contaminated with the crazed equalizing fever, nothing is immune from it these days. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.

There will be consequences to this, I've only just looked it up and there is already an ad popping up offering legal assistance to claim from ASDA in this page. It will cost the supermarkets millions or more, we know who ends up paying for it all. In a way, they ought to face up to this by dragging everyone's pay to the lower level but of course that would be unfair on some.

Women v. Men, that's what made this ruling what it is. Enforced equality regardless of what people do, that is the pervading ethos in the public sector these days and it will spread beyond it by decree. Carrie Gracie is the modern version of Joan of Arc.
The case in full is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/44.html

I don't care about employment law or the Equality Act 2010, so I won't read it in full nor will I give my opinion.

However it is fairly obvious that the CA is applying the wording of statute, preceding case law, and EU law (including EU legislation and CJEU case law). The decision is not based on wanting to divide men and women nor does it suppose that it is proper that we should have equal pay legislation; all it is concerned about is whether the circumstances of the case meet the definition(s) found in various sources of the law. If it does, then Asda must lose and pay compensation. If not, then bad news for the employees. It comes down absolutely to a technical question of law.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Notoriety)
However it is fairly obvious that the CA is applying the wording of statute, preceding case law, and EU law (including EU legislation and CJEU case law). The decision is not based on wanting to divide men and women nor does it suppose that it is proper that we should have equal pay legislation; all it is concerned about is whether the circumstances of the case meet the definition(s) found in various sources of the law. If it does, then Asda must lose and pay compensation. If not, then bad news for the employees. It comes down absolutely to a technical question of law.
Well, that is not a fair representation of my position but we must always accept it may be lack of clarity at my end. It doesn't come as a surprise to learn that somewhere in that report (thanx for it, a quick look made me wish to wait for the SC instead) will be all technicalities that make the ruling more than a case of 'dividing men and women', it's not as if I was suggesting anything illegal has taken place. If there is a stage at which the divide between men and women may surface, that will be at the point of interpretation of the technicality. A 'sympathetic' attitude towards women could affect the interpretation, as much as prejudice against them could go against. We don't know whether that is the case here, of course.

It is a revolutionary case, we're talking equal pay for different jobs and roles here. Whatever the technicality is, it has been buried somewhere all this time, awaiting discovery and application to the world. Now that it's out of the box, how far is it going to travel? I suspect the same technicality will now open the door to a new field of court time on arguing why can't everyone just have the same pay. Up until now, businesses were mostly free to choose how to grade their employees and that is very likely to be affected. It is a big ruling, it will cost ASDA and others billions.

On top of all that, we all mainly agree it is totally counter-intuitive. The technicality has to be a very powerful one and it would all be clear to us, had we sat through the whole thing or able to search for it in the report, but as it is... I'd have to have it explained in detail to be sure it is all black and white. ASDA have a different interpretation, it's not that they want anything illegal.
Last edited by username1738683; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by zhog)
Well, that is not a fair representation of my position but we must always accept it may be lack of clarity at my end. It doesn't come as a surprise to learn that somewhere in that report (thanx for it, a quick look made me wish to wait for the SC instead) will be all technicalities that make the ruling more than a case of 'dividing men and women', it's not as if I was suggesting anything illegal has taken place. If there is a stage at which the divide between men and women may surface, that will be at the point of interpretation of the technicality. A 'sympathetic' attitude towards women could affect the interpretation, as much as prejudice against them could go against. We don't know whether that is the case here, of course.

It is a revolutionary case, we're talking equal pay for different jobs and roles here. Whatever the technicality is, it has been buried somewhere all this time, awaiting discovery and application to the world. Now that it's out of the box, how far is it going to travel? I suspect the same technicality will now open the door to a new field of court time on arguing why can't everyone just have the same pay. Up until now, businesses were mostly free to choose how to grade their employees and that is very likely to be affected. It is a big ruling, it will cost ASDA and others billions.

On top of all that, we all mainly agree it is totally counter-intuitive. The technicality has to be a very powerful one and it would all be clear to us, had we sat through the whole thing or able to search for it in the report, but as it is... I'd have to have it explained in detail to be sure it is all black and white.
No, people disagree with the outcome of the ruling. They do not know if they disagree with the technical legal reasoning because they have not seen the technical legal reasoning. You are telling me it is a revolutionary case, when you have only scanned the judgment; you too are not familiar with the technical legal reasoning nor whether it is a radical enlargment of pre-existing principles. Judges (and Lord Justices) can only follow the law.

I don't know whether it is a radical enlargement because I know very little about this area of law. But, from a brief read, it seems tthe CA conceives that it is following pre-existing case law. In particular,

104: The essential reason why in my view the Judge's conclusion was open to him – indeed I believe right – is that for both classes (i.e. retail workers and distribution workers) Asda applied common terms and conditions wherever they work. The effect of the case-law, and of North in particular, is that in such a case "wherever they work" extends even to a workplace where they would never in practice work because the nature of its operations is so different, as it was in both Leverton and North itself. The contrast is with a situation where there were no common "distribution terms", so that what terms a distribution worker enjoyed would depend on where they worked.

105: I appreciate that it may seem artificial to say that common terms and conditions apply between depots and stores on the wholly hypothetical basis that if a distribution worker worked (as a distribution worker) in a store distribution terms would apply to him; but the Supreme Court in North confronted that very issue and explained why its conclusion was justified, both on the language of the statute and in policy terms (as to which see in particular para. 34 of Lady Hale's judgment).
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Just my opinion)
So women working at the warehouse distribution centre earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working at the warehouse distribution centre.
Meanwhile women working in the supermarkets earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working in the supermarkets.
Women are free to choose to work in either the supermarkets or distribution centres.

What's the problem?
The problem is that people want more money for less work. That is the truth of it all.

...and this story is just one example of tens of thousands that have been going on for roughly 40 years now. Imagine how much money feminism is costing us thanks to it imposing its warped beliefs on society? I mean people are getting paid whilst not working thanks to this ideology!!!! but it still wants more. It is campaigning for people to be given paid leave for their periods. That's once a month for an entire week. thats 12 weeks a year...it also doesnt want this to affect these's people chances of getting promotions...As in it wants people who work less, people with less experience to be given the same opporunities as those who work more and therefore have more experience...I mean this destructive ideology if it imposes all its ideas on society has the capacity to destroy this country. You only need to go to communist countries like China to see how much of a negative impact this ideology and its communist beliefs have on peoples' lives. I highly recommend people look up documentaries on China's abandoned children. Tens of thousands of children, raised by institutions, permanently mentally scared, who never see their parents because their parents are forced to pursue careers. This is the feminist heaven. A society where both women and men pursue careers and children are raised by third parties.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Notoriety)
No, people disagree with the outcome of the ruling.
Presumably because they have a different interpretation of what forms the basis for it, ASDA and their money obviously see room for manoeuvre there and Court rulings can be overturned by alternative interpretations. You've done a lot of leg work to assuage my fears and it has to be acknowledged, I'm now more inclined to believe there is nothing much fishy on this one. It probably wouldn't have happened if I didn't bend them for effect sometimes.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by zhog)
Presumably because they have a different interpretation of what forms the basis for it, ASDA and their money obviously see room for manoeuvre there and Court rulings can be overturned by alternative interpretations. You've done a lot of leg work to assuage my fears and it has to be acknowledged, I'm now more inclined to believe there is nothing much fishy on this one. It probably wouldn't have happened if I didn't bend them for effect sometimes.
Parties don’t always litigate because they think they will win. Sometimes they litigate to put off the evil day.

Earlier in the thread you referred to appeals. This was a second appeal. Asda have lost in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and now the Court of Appeal. They have been refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court (this is normal. The Court of Appeal only gives permission when they think the law is a mess due to the effect of binding precedents which the Supreme Court should sort out). Asda can petition the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. Asda shouldn’t get permission. The law here is solidly against them, but the Supreme Court often lets in “big ticket” cases anyway and there is a lot of money at stake here.

A number of the posters here have been contrasting checkout staff with forklift drivers, but we don’t really know the make up either group of the workforce and Asda may have greater vulnerabilities than appear at first sight. For example, there may be forklift drivers at the larger stores paid at the retail rate or forklift drivers at the depots may be paid a premium for having a forklift “ticket” over the (higher) depot rate. If that is the case, it won’t only affect those employees directly involved but everyone whose pay scale is linked with those employees. We just don’t have the detail because this hasn’t yet been tried.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by zhog)
I have a question for you, if you don' mind: why do ASDA pay distribution centre staff more than shop staff?
Don't hold your breath.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The law here is solidly against them, but the Supreme Court often lets in “big ticket” cases anyway and there is a lot of money at stake here.
Just a poorly drafted employment contract, then?
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by zhog)
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-as...-idUKKCN1PP1JH

It's not the same thing to work in a warehouse pushing cages in and out in the middle of the night (mostly men) and sitting at the till in the warm at daytime (mostly women). The justice system have been contaminated with the crazed equalizing fever, nothing is immune from it these days. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.

There will be consequences to this, I've only just looked it up and there is already an ad popping up offering legal assistance to claim from ASDA in this page. It will cost the supermarkets millions or more, we know who ends up paying for it all. In a way, they ought to face up to this by dragging everyone's pay to the lower level but of course that would be unfair on some.

Women v. Men, that's what made this ruling what it is. Enforced equality regardless of what people do, that is the pervading ethos in the public sector these days and it will spread beyond it by decree. Carrie Gracie is the modern version of Joan of Arc.

I've done those sorts of jobs in the past and warehouse work is MUCH harder than shop floor work. There's a reason why like 80% of warehouse staff are male. It's hard physical work, and the vast majority of british women simply won't do it [the women you do get there seem to usually be europeans]

You've often get BS like pick rates as well when working warehouse. There's no way it's comparable to working the shop floor.
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by zhog)
I have a question for you, if you don' mind: why do ASDA pay distribution centre staff more than shop staff?
I think ASDA should comply with the relevant law, which three courts have now judged they have not.

I'm not an employment lawyer and by the sounds of it, you're not either. Perhaps technical questions in this area should be left to those with expertise in it? I trust the courts ability to determine and apply the law, do you not?
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by zhog)
I have a question for you, if you don' mind: why do ASDA pay distribution centre staff more than shop staff?
(Original post by zhog)
Just a poorly drafted employment contract, then?
They are fair questions and we don't know the detail yet.

I suspect they are historical employment practices which management has failed to get to grips with. It is easier to ignore something like this where one is dealing with separate sites.

The fact that Asda is in this bother means there won't be a clear "market forces" argument. If Asda can hire checkout staff ten a penny but warehouse staff are like hens teeth, that would be an objective justification for any discrimination and be a complete answer to the claim. The fact that lawyers are pressing on with a claim, means that Asda almost certainly doesn't have such a simple answer to give.

Employment practices today are more capitalist than they were say 40 years ago. No-one today gives a man a pay rise because he is getting married but that used to be commonplace. So too, did paying the least important white collar worker more than every skilled blue collar one. Pay scales were much more commonly related to what the employer considered particular employee groups ought to be paid, than what they needed to be paid to attract and retain staff of the right quality. In that world, it is much easier to pay a group of men in a warehouse more than a group of women in a shop even if it is easier to hire the men and the quality of the female shop staff is much more important to your business model.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (42)
11.93%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
11.08%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.13%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.56%
No (251)
71.31%

Watched Threads

View All