MEMBERSHIP INSIGHT
class 1A NICs at source and save P11D(b) process; a more straightforward application process; agent registration; class 1A reporting being done monthly via the FPS; mandatory requirement so if an employee leaves they will always have payrolled benefits not switching from P11D to payrolling. As the survey was still running at the time of writing we shall provide you with a further update in the next OYB. NMW: salariedworkers and salary sacrifice In December 2018, the government published a consultation concerning the national minimum wage (NMW) rules regarding salaried workers and the operation of salary sacrifice schemes. People who perform salaried hours work are paid an annual salary in equal weekly or monthly instalments, for an annual number of hours. Legislation provides a set of rules over how compliance with the NMW is calculated when regular salaries are paid. Certain conditions must be met in order for work to qualify as salaried hours work under NMW regulations. The consultation asked for views on how effective these rules are in preventing worker exploitation. The consultation also asked for views on proposed changes to regulations which relate specifically to salaried hours work, including regulations 21 and 24. In particular, welcoming views on whether, and if so how, government might amend the regulations to include additional payment cycles and fixing the definition of the calculation year for employers, without any detriment to workers. Salary sacrifice schemes are used in some workplaces whereby a worker agrees with an employer a lower rate of gross pay in exchange for goods or services (e.g. childcare vouchers, or bicycles). The NMW regulations include provisions designed to protect workers from unfair deductions from their wages. This consultation also asked for views on the practical operation of these provisions and their effect on workers on the minimum wage.
We reiterated in all our calls for your responses to our survey that this consultation provides you, payroll professionals, with a real opportunity to influence change. We asked – and you really listened – as we received 177 responses to help inform our response – thank you! Our survey had just closed at the time of writing, so a summary of ‘what you said’ will be included in the next OYB. Extending redundancy protection A consultation was published earlier this year which recommends that the current protection afforded under the Maternity and Paternity Leave etc Regulations 1999 (which apply to the period of maternity leave) be extended to cover the period of pregnancy and a period after, an extension of six months. This is a commitment that was made in the government’s response to the ‘Taylor Review’, and which had also previously been raised by the Women and Equalities Select Committee. At the time of writing we had just published a survey to gather your feedback and views on how best to achieve the proposed extension, asking questions such as: ● ● To what extent do you agree that protections against redundancy for a period following return to work should be aligned with those already in place during maternity leave? ● ● What costs do you believe the extension would bring for individuals and for businesses? ● ● What benefits do you believe the extension would bring for individuals and for pregnancy and a period after, an extension of six months ...to cover the period of
businesses? ● ● Do you agree that six months would be an adequate period of ‘return to work’ for redundancy protection purposes or do you think a different period would work better? ● ● Should pregnancy for redundancy protection purposes be defined as starting at the point a woman informs her employer that she is pregnant in writing or do you think an earlier reference point should be used? ● ● Are there other forms of leave which should be considered for additional redundancy protection on return to work? In the next issue of OYB we will provide you with a summary of the responses we received to our survey. GPG reporting We asked a question about gender pay gap (GPG) reporting in a quick poll on our website through the end of January and beginning of February, and we were interested to see what the breakdown looked like per sector. Specifically, we asked: “Has GPG reporting resulted in more openness in the subject of pay and reward in your organisation?” We received 193 responses in total, as follows: ● ● private sector – yes 9%, no 51%, improving 12% ● ● public sector – yes 4%, no 20%, improving 0% ● ● third sector – yes 1%, no 3%, improving 0%. As the results show, ‘no’ is in the majority; but we are only at the end of the second reporting year and it is encouraging to see that there are also some positive results in there too. (Please do bear in mind that our polls are just a snapshot in time; a one- question poll which does limit the responses and does not cater for follow up.) BEIS recommendations At the end of January 2018, the government response to GPG recommendations made by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee was published. Some of the recommendations made were identified by CIPP members during consultation, particularly around the method of certain calculations. With regard to the openness and transparency element of GPG reporting, one of the recommendations made by the BEIS committee is that organisations should be required to provide some narrative reporting alongside their gender pay statistics and an action plan setting out how pay gaps are being and
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | April 2019 | Issue 49 6
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker