Minimum wage: apprenticeship confusion

Minimum wage: apprenticeship confusion

A law firm ‘named and shamed’ today by the government for failing to pay the minimum wage has hit back strongly.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) included Hampshire-based Rowe Sparkes in a list of 70 employers because it “neglected to pay £530.96 to a worker”.

Government policy is to name all employers that have been issued with a notice of underpayment unless employers meet one of the exceptional criteria or have arrears of £100 or less.

“All 70 cases named today failed to pay the national minimum wage and have arrears of over £100,” it said.

Business minister Jo Swinson said: “Paying less than the minimum wage is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable. Naming and shaming gives a clear warning to employers who ignore the rules, that they will face reputational consequences as well as financial penalties of up to £20,000 if they don’t pay the minimum wage.”

In a statement, Rowe Sparkes explained that it employed an apprentice under a one-year contract from 22 December 2011 at an hourly rate which was “considerably above the apprenticeship rate” – this is currently £2.73 an hour.

“The apprentice was signed off by her college in October 2012 but remained on the apprenticeship contract of employment. Advice was taken from an HR consultant as to her status and her pay rate.

“HMRC conducted an investigation and determined that, despite the advice we had been given, the apprentice should have been paid the non-apprentice minimum wage for the period after her college course finished. We fully cooperated with this investigation through our accountants Fiander Tovell, who were of the view that the decision made by the HMRC was wrong.

“We relied reasonably on what we maintain was correct advice throughout and believe that we did not underpay anyone but rather paid in excess of the applicable rates.”

The statement continued that the only further course of action would have been an appeal against the HMRC decision to an employment tribunal, “an expensive and time-consuming affair which would have involved our former employee”.

It said: “We were advised that whilst we had a very good case, we could not expect to receive any of our costs for the appeal back and so as an SME we decided on an economic basis to pay the amounts calculated by the HMRC. In doing so we made it clear that we in no way accepted HMRC’s determination.

“On 3 February 2015 we were notified by BIS of their intention to publish our details and inviting representations. Those representations were made on 4 February 2015 but we did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.”


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

The working practices of property lawyers have changed little since the 19th century. Many aspects of the conveyancing process remain offline – documents are still on paper and the data entered manually. The commercial transaction process is laborious, slow and… Read More

Blog

20 June 2018

New tech on the block: what you need to know about blockchain

Blockchain. It’s been branded as the future of just about everything, and is soon expected to infiltrate all aspects of how we live our lives from banking, to tax returns to voting. But what is it, and how can it be used in property transactions?

Read More

18 June 2018

Surely no one would do this?

It’s slightly tongue-in-cheek, but let’s see if we can design a business model that is doomed to struggle and which will ensure that we miss out on the profit and cash opportunities that come with providing high-value services at high prices in a near-monopoly situation.

Read More