1. Ms K Monaghan KC and Mr Z Ansari (counsel) for the Roscoe Reid group of Claimants 2. Ms N Ling (counsel) for the Leigh Day group of Claimants For the v Respondent — 2020

These were the third tranche of the stage 2 equal value hearing in the equal pay proceedings brought by retail-store claimants against Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc and Safeway Stores Ltd. The tribunal did not decide liability or remedy in this judgment. It determined factual disputes about whether the work of the lead claimants, Ms A Tucker, Mrs S Williams, Ms S Hoyle and Mrs L Gage, was of equal value to the work of the lead comparator Mr A Rowe, and said the Independent Experts must now prepare their report.

Across the annexes, the tribunal made detailed findings on disputed job-description wording. It often accepted the claimants’ evidence that their day-to-day work involved using knowledge, experience and judgment beyond the written guides, for example in café cooking and closing tasks for Ms Tucker, counter work and customer complaints for Mrs Williams, checkout leadership and security issues for Ms Hoyle, and petrol-station shopping, planogram deviations, vehicle assistance and site-crash procedures for Mrs Gage. It also accepted some comparator evidence, including Mr Rowe’s security-reporting and performance-management material.

The tribunal rejected or narrowed some claimed duties where it considered them too infrequent or outside the role, including unloading deliveries as part of Ms Hoyle’s job and some other specific tasks identified in Annex 3. The judgment records that the findings in the annexes replace disputed job-description wording so that the independent experts can proceed on the factual basis the tribunal found.