The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
News On Line
The latest list of companies who have failed to pay their staff at National Minimum Wage (NMW) level has been published.
This is round 17 of the naming scheme and contains the names of 191 companies who did not pay over 34,000 workers in line with NMW law, up to a total of £2.1 million. The list includes firms of all sizes, from a wide variety of sectors. The firms were identified during investigations carried out by HMRC in relation to breaches that occurred between 2011 and 2018. Any of those employers named in the list have been made to pay back to workers what they owed, and additional fines were issued to the value of £3.2 million.
The government recognises that not all minimum wage underpayments are intentional, but employers must be aware of their responsibilities. Guidance on the topic of NMW can be accessed on GOV.UK.
There are some common causes of underpayment, and they relate to instances where workers who are paid at, or just above, the minimum wage rate, have some form of deduction taken from their pay, which takes them below the relevant rate. In a lot of cases, this may be for things such as uniform or accommodation. Employers also frequently fail to pay their workers for all the time they spend working, particularly where overtime is concerned. In addition to this, there are those businesses that pay an in correct apprenticeship rate or who don’t understand how the minimum wage rate interacts with payment of apprentices. The fines associated with failure to pay at NMW rates can be substantial. Financial penalties can be applied of up to 200% of arrears owed, capped at £20,000 per worker. Employers are also required to pay back the arrears they owe to workers at current minimum wage rates.
An educational bulletin has been published which should assist on the areas that have been identified as common causes of underpayment of NMW in the latest naming round.
There is also a website which will help workers to ensure they are being paid correctly. It is located here.
CIPP comment
The CIPP understands that the requirements of NMW can be very complex and some employers who try to do the right thing can still fail to meet their compliance obligations. What are your views on this? Is there anything more you think could be done to support employer compliance? Contact the Policy team, at Policy@cipp.org.uk.
Back to contents
Care worker unfairly dismissed after employer failed to consider furlough as an alternative to redundancy 10 August 2021
Tribunal found in favour of the claimant, who was unfairly dismissed because her employer did not consider placing her on furlough.
Mrs Mhindurwa, a care worker provided live-in care to a vulnerable individual from October 2018, until 8 February 2020. The live-in care was brought to an end because the individual was admitted to hospital and then later moved to a care home. In July 2020, Mrs Mhindurwa’s employer; Loving Angels Care, informed her that she would be made redundant. Mrs Mhindurwa had previously requested that she was furloughed, which was denied, and she subsequently claimed unfair dismissal based on the fact that she should have been furloughed and not dismissed.
Evidence submitted to the tribunal confirmed that there was no immediate work available for Mrs Mhindurwa because the volume of live-in work had significantly reduced due to the pandemic. The only work available was domiciliary care
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 26 of 220
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker