Tribunal affirms harsh realities faced by Co-op shop workers

In a ruling handed down on 3 June 2025, Manchester Employment Tribunal found that customer team members (CTM) were subject to aggressive behaviour and verbal abuse, in some cases on every shift, and that this risk increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also acknowledged that retail staff faced physical demands and a risk of injury while carrying out tasks like replacing stock in-store.

In an equal pay claim in which mostly female retail employees are represented by law firm Leigh Day, the claimants are arguing their roles are of equal value to the predominantly male workforce in the company’s distribution centres.  

This month’s judgment is part of the Stage Two proceedings, where the tribunal was asked to determine the content of job descriptions for selected lead claimants and comparators.

In a Stage Two Equal Value hearing held at the Manchester Employment Tribunal over dates in 2024 and 2025, the tribunal examined two CTMs and several warehouse operatives. Its judgment aimed to reflect the real-life responsibilities and working conditions of both roles.  

The roles represent a broader group of more than 5,500 Co-op shop workers who are clients of Leigh Day.

The tribunal rejected several of Co-op’s arguments around the nature of shop floor work. Notably, it disagreed with the company’s claim that violence and verbal abuse in stores were “very rare” and instead found that retail workers in certain cases  faced these risks on a weekly and even daily basis.

Co-op had attempted to exclude incidents of aggressive customer behaviour from the job descriptions, including examples where customers slammed money on tills or became physically threatening. The tribunal ruled that such incidents should be included in the agreed job descriptions.

In contrast, the tribunal found that warehouse roles were often task-based and carried out under close instruction. For example, in the picking work, which formed a major part of warehouse operatives’ work, staff followed instructions from the “Talkman” system and did not work independently as claimed. One Co-op witness even described the role as akin to self-employment - a suggestion the tribunal said “could not have been further from the truth”.

The tribunal also rejected attempts by Co-op to inflate the value of warehouse roles by including details of tasks that were never actually performed in practice by the comparators. It concluded that including hypothetical or contractually possible tasks was not appropriate when describing the role.

By contrast, the tribunal recognised that shop workers exercised initiative and independent judgement, for example by deciding how to organise and prioritise tasks and remember procedures at the kiosk tills without relying on prompts.  

The tribunal also found that Co-op had attempted to distance itself from its own training materials that expected workers to “actively delight” customers - while simultaneously arguing that these actions should not count towards job value.

These agreed job descriptions will now be submitted to independent experts, who will assess and compare the roles in detail to determine whether they are of equal value. This expert analysis will form the basis of the next stage in the proceedings.

Under the Equality Act 2010, jobs do not need to be identical to be considered equal - rather it’s about the demands of the role, such as effort, skill, responsibility, and working conditions.

A further hearing is scheduled to take place later this year, where lawyers at Leigh Day hope the tribunal will move forward to Stage Three - the final step in deciding whether the roles are of equal value. Within this stage, lead claimants are only required to establish equal value with one or more of the lead comparators to win and for their claims to proceed to the next stage.

If the claims are successful, Co-op workers could receive up to six years of back pay and an increase in their hourly rate.

Michael Newman, employment partner at Leigh Day, said:

“This ruling provides further validation for our clients’ claims and sets the stage for a fair assessment of their work. The tribunal saw through Co-op’s attempts to downplay the challenges and skills involved in shop floor roles and acknowledged the value of what these workers do every day.

“For too long, retail workers - the majority of whom are women - have faced unjustifiable pay disparities despite performing roles that demand significant emotional intelligence, physical effort, problem-solving, and resilience. This judgment is a strong recognition that these roles are not only customer-facing but also involve a level of responsibility and initiative that cannot be ignored.

“It is also significant that the tribunal rejected attempts to artificially inflate the value of warehouse roles by including tasks that aren’t ever carried out. That clarity is essential as we now move into the next phase, where independent experts will conduct analysis of the jobs to assess whether they are of equal value.

“We believe this ruling brings Co-op shop workers an important step closer to the recognition and pay they rightly deserve.”