Amid a backdrop of growing discontent, 159 MPs have urged Asda to address gender pay disparities.
- These MPs have called on TDR Capital, Asda’s owners, to initiate settlement talks with the GMB union.
- The pay dispute is significant, with potential backdated wages exceeding £2bn, affecting over 60,000 employees.
- The legal proceedings have forced Asda to confront allegations of paying retail staff, predominantly women, less than their male counterparts in warehouses.
- Asda maintains that these pay differences are justified by distinct industry requirements, despite growing political and legal pressures.
In a decisive move, 159 Members of Parliament have officially requested Asda to resolve its gender-based pay dispute, emphasising the need for urgent negotiations with the GMB union. The letter, directed to TDR Capital’s key figures, Manjit Dale and Gary Lindsay, highlights the necessity of discussing settlement terms to conclude the ongoing case, now in its second phase.
The case centres on claimed pay disparities potentially amounting to more than £2 billion in backdated wages. The affected group comprises a significant portion of Asda’s retail workforce, which largely consists of women, compared to their predominantly male peers in warehouse roles.
Prominent figures such as Nadia Whittome, Diane Abbott, and Liz Saville-Roberts lend their voices to the appeal. Their involvement underscores the perceived significance and urgency of rectifying alleged gender discrimination within the supermarket chain.
Despite the mounting pressure, Asda contends its stance, insisting that its pay rates are fair and derived from the inherent differences between retail and warehouse work sectors. An Asda representative stated, “We fully respect the right of current and former colleagues to bring this case, however, we strongly reject any claim that Asda’s pay rates are influenced by gender.”
The response from the GMB union has been supportive, with national officer Nadine Houghton affirming that political backing strengthens the workers’ position. “Low paid women workers have propped up the profits of retail giants for too long, its time they are paid properly for the valuable work they do,” Houghton remarked.
Asda’s case is now before the Employment Tribunal, where it must justify the pay gap, explaining why its female retail employees receive significantly lower wages compared to their male counterparts in similar warehouse positions. This tribunal session follows a landmark court case marking stage two of the conflict, involving over 60,000 employees and reflecting broader trends within the retail sector.
Previous tribunal cases, such as those involving Next, have set precedents, with successful claims against retailers failing to rationalise pay differences. Leigh Day partner Lauren Lougheed expressed confidence that Asda’s case will similarly falter unless a credible, non-gender-based rationale is presented for the disparity.
The ongoing legal and political scrutiny underscores the need for transparent and equitable pay structures across industries.
