In this equal pay claim, the Claimants needed to establish that the work they did was equal to that of an identified male comparator or comparators. They could do this in one of only 3 ways, one of which was where a Job Evaluation Study (JES) had been conducted that had assessed or rated different jobs or work as being equivalent, in terms of the demands made on a person by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making, often referred to as a “rated as equivalent” (RAE) claim. The claimants’ RAE claim was based on what the Respondent described as an informal exercise that was carried out in 2014 which had scored the demands of certain roles or activities within Tesco, given them an overall score and ranked them in score order (“the 2014 Exercise”). The issue between the parties was whether or not the 2014 Exercise was a JES under s.80(5) EqA 2010 on which the Claimants were entitled to rely to establish equal work, thus obviating the need to establish equal work via the equal value route. The ET found that the 2014 Exercise was not a valid JES and the RAE claims were dismissed. The Claimants appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. There was no error in the ET’s conclusion that the 2014 Exercise was not a JES as it did not cover the demands made on the job holders as required by s.80(5) and was still a work in progress.