Answering 'market rate' in a pay case

You are preparing a pay or progression case, and the answer you expect is that your pay follows market rates. Before you raise it, ask for the evidence behind the band and put your own role value in the same file.

The band is only as good as its evidence

When an employer says your pay follows market rates, the answer should be a file, not a phrase. The file should show how the band was built, who it covers, and what labour-market pressure it is meant to reflect. A market-rate answer without that file is thin.

A useful test comes from a recent employment appeal. The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal decided on 8 September 2026 that Next was allowed to pay warehouse staff more per hour than shop-floor workers. That decision overturned part of a 2024 equal-pay ruling. The EAT said Next's higher warehouse pay pursued a legitimate aim because recruitment and retention factors applied to warehouse staff but not to the claimant group.

Workforce data for 2012 to 2023 showed nearly 78% of retail sales positions were held by women, while roughly 53% of warehouse positions were held by men. Warehouse workers received a pay premium of 38p to £3.13 per hour over retail sales workers during the examined period. The EAT preserved prior conclusions that Next had failed to defend reduced night rates, overtime rates and unpaid rest breaks for store workers, and sent the Sunday premium question back to the employment tribunal.

Read the Next decision as a warning, not a template. Leigh Day has brought equal-pay claims against Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons and Co-op covering more than 112,000 store staff. A pay differential can survive if the employer has real evidence of a distinct labour market. It can also fail on the same facts when the evidence is missing, stale, or misapplied. Your job is to force the employer to show the evidence, then compare it with your role.

The file is built before the meeting

Build the file in this order:

• Request the benchmarking data: survey name, date, sample size, job titles, and the band position of your role. When the employer cannot produce it, note the gap in writing.
• Request recruitment and retention evidence: vacancy rates, time-to-fill, leaver data, and the labour market for the exact role. A survey that says nothing about vacancies and leavers is not enough.
• Request the role evaluation that shows how your role was placed in the band, including scope, complexity, accountability, and any premium or penalty factors.
• Request internal comparators: similar roles, responsibilities, seniority, and pay outcomes. You are looking for a comparator inside the org chart who does comparable work at a different price.
• Ask which premium or penalty your role carries, and which one it does not. A premium claim needs data that separates your role from the rest of the band. A no-premium claim needs an internal comparator that proves it.
• Document your own role value and counter-evidence in one file: a one-page note tying your duties to the evaluation criteria, and a response to each employer point showing what they said, what evidence they gave, and what is missing or inconsistent.

The common mistake is treating a salary survey as proof. A survey without vacancy data, attrition data, or role mapping is a starting point, not a defence. The market-rate claim weakens when the employer cannot say why your role is hard to fill or keep.

The premium, not the label, decides the case

The market answer often hides a premium. A premium for scarcity, shift work, risk, travel, or a hard-to-replace skill needs data that separates the role from the rest of the band. A role with the same accountability, complexity, and market pressure should not sit lower in the band without a visible reason.

In the meeting, ask for the missing pieces and note the answers in writing. If the employer has a real market-rate defence, the file will show it. If not, the file will show the gap you need to address.