Regulatory enforcement of the minimum wage
By Jessica Smeaton
Earlier this month, the government named and shamed 25 employers who failed to pay their workers the national minimum wage (NMW). Under rules that came into force in October 2013, previous restrictions on identifying employers who flout NMW law have been stripped back, making it easier for the government to publicise those who have been issued with a notice of underpayment.
There is no denying that there is a problem with enforcement of the NMW. In August 2013, when announcing the change in rules the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) stated that HMRC had identified 736 employers in 2012–13 who had failed to pay the NMW, leading to the recovery of £3.9m in unpaid wages for more than 26,500 workers.
But it is not all ‘rogue’ employers; enforcement action can result from simple maladministration. Unfortunately for well-meaning but sloppy employers, that won’t normally save them. According to HMRC policy, the reasons for the underpayment will not be taken into account when determining whether or not to issue a notice of underpayment, even if the underpayment was accidental…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?