And speaking of tangibility brings me to the case of Tesco Stores Limited v Element & Ors (2026), and the relevance of Tesco’s weighty training manuals and workplace instructions as evidence in a group claim.

The case forms part of a very large equal pay claim against Tesco. The claim was brought mainly by female store workers, who compared their work with mainly male workers in Tesco distribution centres. The claims began in 2018 and now involve nearly 60,000 people, although about 34,000 were relevant to this appeal. The tribunal had to decide what each job involves and what demands are placed on the employees doing those jobs. That information is then used by an independent expert to decide whether the jobs are of equal value.

Six store workers and eight distribution centre workers were chosen as sample employees. The parties prepared detailed job descriptions and lists of disputed facts, and a long hearing then took place in 2023. During the hearing, the Tribunal decided that Tesco’s detailed training materials and operational instructions were the best starting point for understanding what each job required.

Tesco argued that the tribunal had gone too far and should have focused more on what workers said they did in practice, rather than relying so heavily on written training documents. Tesco also said the tribunal had wrongly reopened facts that had already been agreed between the parties.

The tribunal’s view was that a job is mainly defined by what the employer requires the employee to do. In a business like Tesco, where work is highly standardised and heavily guided by set procedures, the training documents were strong evidence of those requirements. Oral evidence from employees was still relevant, but it was most useful where someone said the work was done differently from the way the documents described.

The tribunal therefore used Tesco’s manuals and instructions to make many of its findings about the roles. It also produced lengthy judgments and appendices so that the independent experts could use those findings in the next stage of the equal value process.
Tesco appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal., saying the ET had used the wrong legal approach, relied too much on the training materials, and acted outside its powers by changing or reopening matters that had already been agreed.

The EAT mostly agreed with the ET. It accepted that the training documents could properly be used as the starting point. However, it found some mistakes in individual findings and sent certain points back for further work.

Tesco then appealed again, this time to the Court of Appeal. Tesco argued that the whole stage 2 process was flawed and should be reheard because the tribunal had misunderstood how to decide what work the employees did.

The Court of Appeal rejected most of Tesco’s arguments. It confirmed that, in a highly organised workplace where employees are expected to follow detailed procedures, a tribunal can use training manuals and operational guidance as the main starting point for identifying the work employees are required to do. The court said that “work” is about the bargain between employer and employee: in simple terms, what the employer expects the employee to perform as part of the job.

The court also said that Tesco could not win an appeal simply by making broad complaints about the tribunal’s general approach. If a party says a factual finding is wrong, it must point to the specific finding and explain the legal error. General criticism is not enough.
However, Tesco did succeed on one point. The Court of Appeal held that the tribunal was not allowed to reopen facts that the parties had already agreed, unless there was a question about whether those facts were legally relevant. Once facts have been agreed, the tribunal cannot simply decide them again in a different way.

The decision is important for large equal pay claims, especially where jobs are standardised and employees work under detailed procedures. It shows that training manuals, process documents and workplace instructions can be powerful evidence of what a job requires. This may help employers who have clear, up-to-date documents showing how work should be done.

The case is also a reminder that agreed facts matter. Parties should take care when agreeing facts in equal pay cases, because those facts are likely to remain fixed. The court’s decision also makes clear that appeals need to be precise. A party must identify the exact findings it says are wrong, rather than asking an appeal court to reject the whole approach in broad terms.