The UK retailer Next has successfully overturned a 2024 court decision that required it to pay its shop staff the same higher basic wages as its warehouse workers under equal pay laws. The company, led by Conservative peer Simon Wolfson, called the outcome a "landmark victory" in its ongoing legal battle over equal pay. The appeal was successful in the employment appeal tribunal, which ruled in favor of Next on the key issue of basic pay. This followed a 2022 tribunal in Leeds, where 3,540 workers won a six-year legal fight for equal pay. Next then appealed the decision, arguing that shop workers—predominantly female—should not be paid the same as warehouse workers, who are mostly male. Since the original ruling, more than 6,400 employees have joined the legal action, with Next employing over 20,000 store staff across 458 stores in the UK and Ireland. Next claimed that it should not be required to pay shop assistants and warehouse workers the same basic wages because of differences in market rates and working conditions. The company argued that it had to pay a higher rate to warehouse staff due to the challenges of recruiting and retaining workers in that sector, which it said did not apply to store staff. The appeal tribunal agreed, stating that employers must be able to pay what is necessary to hire the staff they need and that this does not require them to increase the pay of other employees unless there is a valid reason to do so. The law firm Leigh Day, which represents the store workers, described the ruling as "mixed." While the tribunal rejected Next's challenge to the findings on lower night-time pay, overtime pay, and the lack of paid rest breaks, it upheld those findings. Next also failed to convince the tribunal that lower Sunday premium payments to store workers were justified. The tribunal noted that the issue of basic pay still needs to be resolved and should be referred back to the employment tribunal. The case, covering the period from 2012 to 2023, found that women made up nearly 78% of retail sales jobs, while men accounted for about 53% of warehouse staff. During that time, some warehouse workers earned between 38p and £3.13 more per hour than retail workers, according to Leigh Day. Elizabeth George, a partner at Leigh Day representing the claimants, said the tribunal rejected Next's arguments that its pay practices did not disadvantage women, noting that they "plainly do" and that the tribunal "firmly recognised that." She expressed satisfaction with the upheld findings on night-time and overtime premiums and paid rest breaks but was disappointed with the conclusion on basic pay. Next claimed the equal pay ruling could threaten the viability of many of its stores and place retailers with their own warehouses at a disadvantage compared to those that outsource warehouse work. However, the original tribunal and the appeal tribunal found no direct discrimination, stating that pay decisions were based on cost and that gender did not influence the pay rates set by Next. Next said it had won the majority of the terms challenged in the equal pay case, including bonus pay for warehouse staff and now basic pay. The company plans to seek permission to appeal on other terms and stated that the judgment came at a crucial time, as the UK economy "desperately needs jobs" and the loss of the appeal would have been a "hammer blow to retail employment in the UK."