Biggest ever list of offenders collectively owe £465,291 to employees; Deliveroo couriers claim new contracts will earn them less than NMW
Almost 200 companies have been named and shamed by HMRC for failing to pay their employees the national minimum wage, in the biggest ever list of offenders released by the government.
The 197 employers – which altogether owe staff £465,291 in wage arrears – include Blackpool FC, Brighton & Hove Albion FC, leading hotel operator Macdonalds Hotels & Resorts and ‘restaurant to the stars’ San Lorenzo. All the money has been repaid to employees.
The worst offender was London-based San Lorenzo, which owns restaurants in Knightsbridge and Wimbledon. It owed 30 of its workers a total of £99,541.98 after it used tips to subsidise wages.
Brighton & Hove Albion FC, which owed £2,861.64 to one worker, said its reputation had been unfairly tarnished. A spokesperson for the club said: “As a business we feel our reputation as a responsible employer has been very unfairly tarnished – we are one of the few clubs that pays its staff over and above the national living wage."
Since the ‘naming and shaming’ scheme first came into force in October 2013, the names of 687 employers – which together owed more than £3.5m in arrears – have been made public.
Conor D’Arcy, policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation, praised the government for stepping up and shaming employers that break the law, calling the level of underpayment “eye watering”.
He said: “There is no excuse for any employer to dodge paying the minimum wage. It’s particularly concerning to see so many firms among the usual suspects of hairdressing, nursery and elderly care that are illegally underpaying their staff.”
Margot James, the minister for small business, consumer protection and corporate social responsibility, outlined the government’s determination to “build an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few”.
“It is not acceptable that some employers fail to pay at least the minimum wage their workers are entitled to, so we will continue to crack down on those who ignore the law, including by naming and shaming them,” she added.
Frances O'Grady, the TUC’s general secretary, said employers that opt to not pay their staff the correct wage “must have nowhere to hide”.
“Ministers are absolutely right to name and shame these companies, but we also need to see prosecutions for the worst offenders,” she said. “We know that thousands more rogue employers are cheating their staff and getting away with it. The government must redouble their enforcement efforts.”
Meanwhile, more than 100 couriers for food delivery service Deliveroo are today protesting outside the company’s London offices in a dispute over a new wage structure, which means they will be paid just £3.75 per delivery instead of an hourly rate of £7 plus £1 per delivery.
The self-employed workers said they often earned less than the national living wage for over-25s (£7.20 per hour) once their expenses were taken into account.
The couriers also said they had been asked to sign additional clauses to their contracts agreeing to the changes.
Deliveroo has said it would roll out the pay terms from next week and claimed that couriers had responded positively in early trials: “What we have seen from previous trials that we have been running in other parts of London is that riders have reacted positively to the trial, and fees rise to more than twice what they were over a lunch or dinner, compared to the old payment model.”
The company said the trial was designed to “better reflect the way that riders work with us… Along with this increased flexibility, we’ve seen average hourly fees for riders in previous trials rise to more than 2.1 times the previous payment model at our busiest times.”
Michael Newman, an employment lawyer at Leigh Day, said that if the workers had not taken on new contracts it would be harder for Deliveroo to push through the changes. “If they haven’t signed the new contracts then the old contracts still apply. Ultimately the employer could fire people and rehire them on the new terms. That could open them up to an unfair dismissal or breach of contract claim, but typically those cases do not get taken,” he explained.