The corporate manual, not time and motion studies, defines employment roles

Equal pay claims can grind on for years before resolution. However, the ground has shifted dramatically. Recently, the Court of Appeal (CoA) accepted Tesco’s own operating and training manual as the definitive source on employee roles. Crucially, the court rejected any granular analysis of daily activity.

How the Tesco case unfolded

The claim began in 2018. At that point, almost 60,000 Tesco store workers, primarily women, brought their case forward. Specifically, they argued that their roles held equal value to those of male colleagues. Notably, the men worked in higher-paid distribution centre jobs.

Then, in July 2023, the Tribunal issued Judgement 1. Instead of parsing thousands of individual instances, it took a bold approach. In effect, it ruled that Tesco’s weighty corporate manuals provided the definitive evidence of role requirements.

Tesco fought back vigorously. Indeed, the company appealed for a rehearing. Had it succeeded, the outcome would have been delayed by a further three years. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held its ground. Consequently, it issued a 619-page Judgement 2 in July 2024, appending a further 750 training documents.

What the Court of Appeal decided

The CoA delivered a resounding vindication for the claimants. Specifically, it ruled in their favour on four of five grounds. These related to Sections 64 and 65 of the Equality Act 2010. Together, these provisions:

• Define “relevant types of work”
• Establish when such work is of “equal value”
• Consider similar levels of effort, skill and decision-making

Ultimately, the ruling effectively defines a ‘role’ as what the employer requires the employee to do. Moreover, those duties appear in exhaustive detail within Tesco’s voluminous training manuals.

Why this matters: the corporate manual defines employment roles

This ruling is clear. Furthermore, it constitutes a significant strategic advantage for claimants in equal pay disputes. In effect, the corporate manual defines employment roles, shifting the focus away from invasive, second-by-second monitoring. Instead, the spotlight now falls on:

• Company operational handbooks
• Mandatory training manuals
• Internal role descriptions

The devil, it appears, lies in the detail. Indeed, these weighty tomes form the very rope by which employers effectively hang themselves. Moreover, such exhaustive detail can be leveraged to demonstrate the true complexity, effort and skill a prescribed role actually requires.

Implications for employers

By validating the use of existing corporate manuals, the CoA has streamlined the fact-gathering phase of equal pay litigation. As a result, employers can no longer easily rely on a ‘Section 69 material factor defence’. Specifically, they cannot simply downplay the everyday realities of female-dominated roles. After all, their own written guidance may suggest otherwise.

So, if an employer demands exhaustive operational perfection on paper, the law will hold them accountable. Ultimately, pay structures must reflect what the documentation actually says. Therefore, employers should take care not to be caught in flagrant self-contradiction by their own materials.

Practical steps to take now

To stay ahead, employers should act quickly. Sensible next steps include:

• Reviewing operating and training manuals for accuracy
• Auditing job descriptions against actual duties
• Benchmarking pay across comparable roles
• Documenting genuine differences in skill, effort and responsibility
• Seeking specialist legal and HR advice early

By acting now, employers can reduce risk and strengthen their position.

Need advice on equal pay risk?

Our team can help you review your documentation and assess potential equal pay exposure. Get in touch today to discuss how the corporate manual defines employment roles in your business and what steps you should take next.