On 20th July, a significant milestone was reached in the UK as the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill received Royal Assent, granting employees across England, Scotland and Wales new powers when requesting flexible work arrangements.

The Act, which will take effect immediately, aims to provide employees with greater flexibility over their working hours and patterns, fostering a better work-life balance and potentially boosting businesses' productivity and competitiveness.

Under the new legislation, employees can now make up to two flexible working requests within a 12-month period, doubling the previous allowance of just one. Furthermore, the requirement that the employee must explain in their request what effect the change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt with, has now been removed.

Under the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act, employers will have to respond to a request within two months, a notable reduction from the previous three-month timeline. This change ensures that employees receive timely consideration of their requests, allowing them to plan their lives accordingly.

Lastly, the act also introduces a new requirement for employers to consult with employees before denying a flexible working request. This move promotes transparency and communication between employers and their workforce, fostering a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

The Act outlines eight different types of flexible working, which include:

Job sharing: Two or more employees share the responsibilities and hours of a full-time role.

Working from home: Employees can perform their duties from their home instead of the company's premises.

Part-time working: Employees work fewer hours than full-time employees, typically on a set schedule.

Compressed hours: Employees work their agreed-upon hours over fewer days, with longer working days.

Flexible hours: Employees have the freedom to choose their start and finish times within agreed-upon limits.

Annualised hours: Employees work a set number of hours over the year, with varying hours each week.

Staggered hours: Employees have different start, finish, and break times to accommodate individual needs.

Phased retirement: Employees gradually reduce their working hours as they approach retirement.

The new legislation is particularly beneficial for workers as it enables them to hold jobs that better align with their personal circumstances, potentially leading to higher job satisfaction and retention rates.

Business and Trade Minister Kevin Hollinrake stated:

“A happier workforce means increased productivity, and that’s why we’re backing measures to give people across the UK even more flexibility over where and when they work.”

The Act's positive impact extends to businesses as well. Research has shown that companies embracing flexible working can attract and retain top talent, increase staff motivation and reduce turnover rates. The ability to accommodate flexible working arrangements can make a company more appealing to prospective employees and enhance its reputation as an employer of choice.

A recent study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) highlighted the significance of flexible working for employees. The research revealed that 6 percent of employees changed jobs due to a lack of flexible options, while 12 percent even left their profession altogether for the same reason. This accounts for approximately 2 and 4 million workers, respectively, indicating the growing demand for flexible work arrangements in the modern workforce.

To further support the implementation of the Act, the conciliation service Acas updated its statutory code of practice on handling flexible working requests. This update reflects the changes brought about by the new legislation and seeks employers' views on the updates in a consultation process that will conclude in early September.

In a landmark case, a Royal Mail employee has been awarded over £2 million in compensation, marking the company's largest-ever settlement.

Kam Jhuti, a media specialist, endured intimidation and harassment from her boss, Mike Widmer, after she raised concerns about a colleague's bonus. The court ruling, which described Royal Mail's conduct as "high-handed, malicious, insulting, and oppressive," emphasised the catastrophic impact of Jhuti's boss's treatment, leading to her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.

The dispute dates back to September 2013, when Ms. Jhuti joined the Royal Mail's MarketReach unit in London. Just a month into her job, while shadowing a colleague, she became suspicious that Ofcom's guidelines and the company's bonus policy, known as Tailor-Made Incentives (TMIs), were being breached. Ms. Jhuti suspected that her colleague was fraudulently securing bonuses by manipulating performance targets. In November, she reported her concerns via email to Mr. Widmer and his superior, highlighting the seriousness of the situation.

Instead of addressing the issue, Ms. Jhuti's boss responded by threatening her job security and questioning her understanding of the TMI policy during a four-hour meeting. Fearing the consequences, she apologised and retracted her allegations, but was subjected to a two-hour "dress down," where she was informed of her alleged underperformance. Mr. Widmer established intensive weekly meetings with Ms. Jhuti, continuously expressing disappointment with her progress.

By December, a TMI expert within the company confirmed that Ms. Jhuti's initial allegations were indeed correct, acknowledging that media specialists were inappropriately offering TMIs. The mounting pressure and mistreatment took a toll on Ms. Jhuti's well-being and by January 2014 she developed alopecia - which she attributed to stress. In February, she was placed on a performance improvement plan with the ultimatum that failure to comply would result in her failing her trial period.

Feeling targeted and mistreated, Ms. Jhuti reached out to human resources, expressing her concerns about her boss's conduct. She stated that it was clear she was being managed with the intent to remove her based on her initial complaint.

In March 2014, she was signed off from work due to work-related stress, anxiety and depression and did not return to her position.

In 2015, Ms. Jhuti took Royal Mail to an employment tribunal, and after several appeals, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, recognising her unfair dismissal. In 2022 the employment tribunal finally recommended that Royal Mail pay £109,065 in compensation and £12,500 in aggravated damages. However, when solicitors for Royal Mail and Ms. Jhuti failed to agree on the correct methodology for calculating future pension losses and therefore agree on a final amount, Ms. Jhuti’s legal team requested another employment tribunal hearing.

The subsequent compensation awarded amounted to £2,365,614.13, including a basic award of £494,213.79 and a past losses including pension award of £1,079,165.07. H

However, Royal Mail plans to appeal the tribunal's findings, resulting in Ms. Jhuti initially only receiving only £250,000.

A new study conducted by Pregnant Then Screwed has shed light on the alarming state of discrimination faced by mothers in the workplace today. The research, which surveyed over 24,000 parents, in collaboration with Women In Data®, reveals distressing statistics that expose the challenges and biases that women encounter when they become mothers.

The most shocking revelation from the study is that approximately 1 in every 61 pregnant women reported that their boss suggested they terminate their pregnancy. Such suggestions are not only inappropriate but also constitute a severe form of discrimination that affects a significant number of expectant mothers in the workforce.

Joeli Brearley, CEO and founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, condemned this behaviour, stating that it is "sex discrimination and inhumane" and highlights the urgent need for workplaces to create an environment where pregnant women are treated with dignity and respect.

The discrimination experienced by women doesn't end with pregnancy; it persists through maternity leave and even on their return to work. More than half of all mothers (52%) have faced some form of discrimination during these stages. Shockingly, a distressing 64% of pregnant women shared that their boss or colleagues made hurtful comments about their physical appearance, showcasing the prevalence of body-shaming during pregnancy.

The repercussions of becoming a mother can be life-altering for some women. One in five mothers (19%) decided to leave their jobs due to negative experiences related to pregnancy or maternity leave. Additionally, 1 in 10 women (10%) experienced bullying or harassment during pregnancy or upon returning to work. Even more concerning, 7% of women lost their jobs due to various factors, including redundancy, sacking, or being compelled to leave because of rejected flexible working requests or purported health and safety issues. When extrapolated, this data indicates that up to 41,752 pregnant women or mothers may be unfairly terminated or made redundant every year.

The discrimination and prejudice faced by mothers are not confined to their employers alone; it often comes from their colleagues as well. A staggering 73% of women reported that a colleague had made hurtful comments about their pregnancy or maternity leave, while 74% said their colleagues insinuated that their performance had dipped due to these circumstances.

The study also exposed the dire lack of support for breastfeeding mothers in the workplace. Despite the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommending a suitable and private environment for breastfeeding, 90% of breastfeeding mothers said they were forced to use a toilet or were provided with no appropriate space for expressing milk.

Moreover, the discrimination isn't solely limited to women who choose to have children; women who make decisions related to their reproductive health also face unfair treatment. Approximately one-third of women (31.58%) who informed their employer about having an abortion felt that they were subsequently discriminated against or treated unfairly. Worryingly, the majority of women (57.6%) chose not to disclose their abortion to their employer, possibly due to fears of judgment and further discrimination.

The study's findings highlight the urgent need for significant changes in workplace culture and policies to eradicate discrimination against mothers and women in general. Employers must prioritise creating safe and supportive environments for pregnant women and working parents. Implementing anonymous reporting processes for discrimination claims and offering mental health support for affected employees are vital steps towards addressing this issue.

Furthermore, companies need to provide suitable and private spaces for breastfeeding mothers, adhering to the guidance from the HSE. Flexible working options and phased returns to work should also be made available for women who have had an abortion, recognising the physical and emotional toll it can take.

Nearly one in three UK women expect to leave work before they plan to retire, with many citing health, wellbeing, or menopause concerns as reasons for their potential early departures - according to a report by the British Standards Institution (BSI).

The BSI survey polled women in the UK and found that 29% of them were likely to leave the workforce early for reasons other than personal choice. Among this group, 40% expected their early departure to be due to health and wellbeing issues, while an additional 20% specifically mentioned menopause as a barrier to staying in work longer.

The report also highlighted the desire of the majority (75%) of UK women for employers to take more action to retain older female workers. Furthermore, 71% of respondents believed that politicians needed to drive this change.

The attraction and retention of workers aged 50 and over is a significant element of the UK government's labour strategy, as evidenced by the introduction of 'returnerships' announced in the recent Budget.

Kate Field - Global Head of Health, Safety, and Wellbeing at BSI - acknowledged that there are various reasons why women decide not to stay in the workplace and when that is a genuine choice, it should be celebrated. However, the data from the survey shows that there are women who would like to remain in work and would appreciate greater support from their employers to do so.

Field emphasised the opportunity for organisations to partner with their employees to build diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace cultures that can bring enormous benefits to individuals, organisations, and society.

The BSI report also included findings from a survey of more than 5,000 women across the UK, USA, Australia, China and Japan, as part of their "Lifting the second glass ceiling" study. In the UK, 54% of women reported that they would find it difficult to raise health and menopause-related concerns with their employer.

Interestingly, three-quarters of respondents said they would feel comfortable discussing menopause issues with a female manager, while far fewer felt the same level of comfort with a male manager. In fact, only 38% of UK women would feel comfortable discussing health issues with a male manager.

The survey results also revealed that 67% of UK women believed that experienced female mentors would benefit the development of younger women. However, only 46% of respondents had the opportunity to learn from these mentors themselves.

To prevent women from leaving before retirement age, the BSI report recommended that employers consult with female workers to understand how they can enhance engagement and trust. Additionally, it suggested ensuring that support is available and accessible, making small adjustments to working arrangements to enable flexibility and fostering a workplace culture that ensures equity for people of all ages.

Anne Hayes - Director of sectors at BSI - highlighted the benefits of addressing the second glass ceiling, which she stated could “… offer many benefits, from enhancing productivity to ensuring organisations retain talented people and providing mentors who can draw on their experience to guide newer members of staff.”

The future of South Cambridgeshire District Council's trial of a four-day workweek hangs in the balance as the local government minister, Lee Rowley, has formally requested the council to end the experiment "immediately."

Rowley expressed concerns about the trial's value for money and potential breach of legal duties in a letter to council leader Bridget Smith. The council, led by the Liberal Democrats, is the first in the UK to trial the system.

Defending the scheme, Smith emphasised that the four-day week had helped address the council's reliance on expensive agency staff. She cited an assessment showing that performance was maintained and expressed surprise at the minister's request. Smith has requested a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter further.

South Cambridgeshire District Council began the pilot in January, involving the 450 desk-based staff at its Cambourne office and was scheduled to run until March 2024.

In his letter, Lee Rowley expressed his belief in councils' ability to innovate but argued that reducing capacity by up to 20% through the four-day week was unacceptable for a council aiming to demonstrate value for money. He noted that while the private sector may choose to experiment with the concept, local government should not follow suit. Rowley added that such an approach could potentially breach the council's legal duties under the Local Government Act.

Council leader Bridget Smith highlighted the positive impact of the trial, stating that during the first three months, the council filled four previously difficult-to-fill permanent positions, resulting in a £300,000 reduction in the annual agency bill. She also mentioned the positive effect on recruitment, with increased quality and quantity of applicants for vacant posts.

Joe Ryle, director of the 4-Day Week campaign group, criticised Lee Rowley's request, stating that it went against the evidence showing the success of the four-day week at the council. Ryle argued that since the private sector was already implementing the concept with no loss of pay, it was only fair for the public sector to adopt it as well.

He stated:

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has made a startling admission, revealing that approximately 210,000 retirees could be owed a staggering £1 billion due to a data error.

The mistake occurred because it was not mandatory to include National Insurance (NI) numbers on child benefit forms before May 2000, resulting in missed entitlements to state pension. Additionally, data protection laws require the deletion of Child Benefit information after five years, making it challenging for the government to identify those affected. The consequences of this oversight are significant and yet the government finds itself in the dark regarding which women are affected by this issue.

The impact on individuals who have been unemployed and claiming Child Benefit for extended periods of time is particularly severe. For instance, someone who has been claiming the benefit for 15 years may be entitled to an additional 15 years of NI contributions. These lost NI credits could translate to an extra £4,543 per year in state pension, totalling a staggering £68,145 over 15 years (without considering inflation). Disturbingly, it is estimated that approximately one in four underpaid individuals may have passed away before receiving the money they were entitled to.

The error was highlighted by Sir Steve Webb - Partner at LCP and former Minister for Pensions - and follows a new report published by the DWP in July, which revealed that this latest problem was the "second largest" source of underpayments in state pensions.

Sir Steve Webb expressed his shock at the scale of these errors. He stressed the importance of addressing the issue promptly, stating that "things need to be put right as a matter of urgency." Webb also highlighted the significant impact that missing out on protection for time spent at home with children can have on a mother's pension entitlement. Lump sum payments of arrears could potentially amount to thousands of pounds for those affected. He added, "far too many people have been underpaid for far too long," emphasising the need for swift corrective action.

To address this failure, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will be writing to affected individuals, with a particular focus on older women, to determine if any information is missing from their NI records that could affect their state pension entitlement. Specifically, some individuals may find that their home responsibilities protection (HRP) is missing from their NI records. HRP was a scheme designed to safeguard parents' and carers' entitlement to the state pension and it was replaced by NI credits from 6th April 2010.

Starting in the autumn of 2023, HMRC will contact those affected in phases, prioritising individuals based on their proximity to state pension age. Those who have already reached state pension age will be contacted first. This comprehensive effort aims to ensure that the errors in people's state pension records are rectified and that the money owed is paid out. However, given the scale of the issue, the process may take some time to complete.

A new report published by Scottish Widows - the 19th annual Retirement Report -  has shed light on the potential retirement challenges faced by different demographics in the UK. The report introduces the National Retirement Forecast (NRF), a comprehensive analysis that provides a detailed examination of the retirement landscape across various age groups, genders, ethnicities, employment statuses and underrepresented communities - including disabled individuals and the LGBTQ+ community.

According to the NRF, a concerning 35% of Brits could potentially struggle with poverty in retirement. This sobering figure highlights the significant challenges faced by a substantial portion of the population. The current economic climate is a key contributing factor, with the report indicating that many people may struggle to afford basic necessities such as food and heating during their retirement years.

The NRF reveals a significant polarisation in retirement prospects, with 36% of the population heading for a comfortable retirement while the remaining 35% are projected to face financial hardship. These disparities are further exacerbated when examining specific demographic groups. For instance, almost half (43%) of those predicted to struggle in retirement expect to still be paying rent. In several parts of the country, rental costs can consume 60-70% of retirees' income, rising to a staggering 130% in London.

The report also highlights the challenges faced by younger generations. Approximately 41% of people currently in their 20s are on track for hardship in retirement, with an average projected retirement income of £10,000 among this group. However, there is some positive news as the NRF indicates that 43% of millennials are on track for a comfortable retirement. This reflects their strong savings behaviours and the benefits of automatic enrolment in workplace pension schemes.

Gender disparities in retirement income are also brought to light by the NRF. On average, women are expected to receive a third less income in retirement compared to men, with projected retirement incomes of £19,000 and £12,000, respectively. Additionally, almost half (49%) of Brits have not checked whether they are entitled to the full state pension, suggesting a lack of awareness and understanding of retirement benefits.

The NRF further emphasises the impact of employment patterns on retirement prospects. Women, ethnic minorities, and disabled individuals are disproportionately represented in lower-paid and part-time jobs, making it more challenging to accumulate sufficient pension savings. Self-employed individuals also face difficulties in saving adequately compared to full-time employees who receive formal incentives.

Living expenses remain a major concern for the majority of Brits, with 75% expressing worry about their financial situation. Against the backdrop of ongoing economic uncertainty, a worrying minority (21%) has resorted to cutting back on essentials, marking an increase from 16.5% in 2022. These financial pressures likely contribute to the challenges individuals face in preparing for retirement.

One of the most alarming findings of the NRF is the particularly concerning outlook for disabled people. Over half (51%) of disabled individuals are projected to face poverty in retirement, with an average annual income of £11,000. This amount represents only 61% of the income predicted for non-disabled individuals. The report also highlights data from disability equality charity Scope, revealing that disabled households require £975 more per month to secure the same standard of living as non-disabled households. This suggests that the retirement income gap for disabled individuals may be even wider than estimated by the NRF.

Scottish Widows' Head of Policy - Pete Glancy - stressed the importance of addressing the inequalities faced by disabled individuals, particularly the additional costs they bear throughout their lives, which make it harder to achieve a comfortable retirement.

Glancy called on employers to take action to resolve disparities in pay and progression and urged the government to advocate for more transparency from businesses, helping disabled individuals avoid the prospect of retiring in poverty.

Louise Rubin, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Scope, echoed these sentiments, emphasising the need for politicians to prioritise addressing the disability employment and pensions gap. Rubin underscores the fact that life costs significantly more for disabled individuals and that planning for retirement becomes a luxury many cannot afford. It is crucial to break the link between poverty and disability and ensure that disabled people have an equal standard of living.

The NRF report serves as a wake-up call for the UK government, businesses and the financial services industry. Scottish Widows urged the government to implement long-term reforms that support those on lower incomes, ensuring that automatic enrolment can effectively address retirement poverty. Additionally, businesses must work towards addressing workplace inequalities faced by disadvantaged groups.

Lastly, the financial services industry must improve its communication efforts to build trust and ensure that individuals across all income levels and demographics understand how to save effectively for retirement.

A new survey conducted by investment comparison site Investing Reviews has shed light on the sentiment of the UK population regarding pensions and retirement. The survey, which gathered opinions from over 2,000 users, aimed to better understand the nation's attitudes towards these important topics. The results revealed that a significant majority of respondents - 70% believe that retiring comfortably in the UK has become increasingly challenging.

Interestingly, the survey also found that 78% of respondents feel that the retirement age in the UK should be lowered. Currently standing at 66, the retirement age has been a subject of debate and discussion for many years. This sentiment aligns with the belief of around 70% of respondents who feel that it is now harder than ever to retire in the UK.

The survey results suggest that the desire for a lower retirement age and the perceived difficulty of retiring comfortably may be influenced by financial concerns. A notable 62.60% of respondents stated that their pension alone would not be sufficient to support a comfortable retirement. They believe that additional investments alongside their pension will be necessary. Moreover, more than half of the respondents - 55.82% - expressed their inability to make as many pension contributions as they would like to, which may contribute to their concerns about retirement.

When considering employer contributions, the survey revealed that over 42% of respondents would contemplate switching to a different career sector if it meant receiving greater contributions from their employers. This indicates a willingness among individuals to explore different avenues to secure a more robust pension for their retirement.

Investing Reviews CEO, Simon Jones, commented on the survey findings, highlighting the ongoing debates surrounding retirement ages and pensions in the UK. He pointed out that recent events in France, where tensions have escalated due to the increase in the retirement age from 62 to 64, added an additional layer to the discussion. Jones emphasised that the survey responses offer valuable insights into the British public's sentiments on pensions and retirement ages, particularly the growing belief that retiring comfortably has become more challenging. He further expressed interest in observing how factors such as the French backlash and the increasing cost-of-living crisis might shape these sentiments in the future.

In a related study, Investing Reviews analysed official government data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and found that the sector with the highest percentage of employers contributing 20% or more to employees' pensions is "public administration and defence (including compulsory social security)." On the other hand, employers in the "wholesale and retail trade (including motor vehicles and motorcycle repair)" sector had the lowest percentage of employer contributions of 20% or more, with only 1.3% falling in this category.

The survey also revealed that over a third of respondents do not have a clear understanding of the exact amount of money in their pensions. Furthermore, more than one-third of respondents expressed their belief that they will not be able to retire comfortably in the UK.

These survey results provide valuable insights into the sentiment of the UK population regarding retirement and pensions. It highlights the widespread belief that retiring comfortably has become increasingly difficult, along with the desire for a lower retirement age. The findings also emphasise the importance of additional investments alongside pensions and the impact of employer contributions on individuals' retirement planning.

In a case that highlighted gender discrimination in the workplace, Jiang Ping, a senior female executive, has emerged victorious in a victimisation claim against her employer, James Durrans & Sons Ltd. She was denied a pay rise on the grounds that her director husband's salary was deemed "more than enough." The ruling exposes discriminatory attitudes and serves as a reminder that pay should be based on an individual's qualifications and contributions, irrespective of their marital status.

Ms. Ping, aged 69, initially won £4,000 after the tribunal judges ruled in her favour, stating that she had been discriminated against based on her sex by the metal products company James Durrans & Sons Ltd.

However, they rejected her claim of victimisation after director Chris Durrans threatened to make allegations of discrimination against her if she sued him. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Ms. Ping appealed the ruling and has now been awarded a further £3,000 following a second tribunal ruling.

During the original tribunal hearing, it was revealed that Ms. Ping’s husband, David Armitage, earned up to £270,000 as a director at the company, whilst Ms. Ping's own part-time senior managerial role was rewarded with a salary of £36,000.

In response to her request for a salary increase Ms. Ping's boss - Chris Durrans - commented he believed that "a married woman cannot challenge her salary if her husband is a high earner" and maintained that he was “comfortable” with their combined household income.

This remark disregarded Ms. Ping's individual contributions to the company and perpetuated the notion that her husband's income should determine her own financial worth. Chris Durrans’ brother, Nicholas Durrans, also a director at the company, supported his viewpoint, rejecting Ms. Ping's grievance.

Following the initial ruling, Employment Judge Harjit Grewal stated that Ms. Ping had been subjected to a detriment because her pay complaint was not considered on its merits. The judge highlighted that Mr. Durrans' belief that a married woman cannot challenge her earnings if her husband is a high earner is inherently discriminatory against women. With no satisfactory explanation from Mr. Durrans for dismissing her complaint, the tribunal concluded that he treated her less favourably based on her sex. However, claims of race, sex, and marital status discrimination, as well as harassment, were dismissed.

Ms. Ping's victimisation claim was initially dismissed but she appealed the ruling. In the reconsideration hearing, it was determined that the victimisation claim was well-founded, leading to her being awarded an additional £3,000 in compensation.

The ruling underscores the importance of fair and equal treatment of employees, regardless of their marital status or their spouse's income. Companies must acknowledge that each individual's salary should reflect their qualifications, contributions and responsibilities, rather than being influenced by external factors.

Over 200 companies in the UK, including well-known retailers like WH Smith, Marks & Spencer, Argos and LloydsPharmacy, have been collectively fined £7 million for failing to pay their employees the legal minimum wage. The violations were discovered by inspectors at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who found various breaches such as workers being asked to pay for aspects of their uniforms or being paid incorrect apprenticeship rates. As a result, these businesses had to pay out £4.9 million to approximately 63,000 workers who were left out of pocket.

The list of offending companies encompasses a range of industries, from fashion brands and car washes to hotels and takeaway businesses. The government emphasised that this decision demonstrates that companies failing to pay staff properly will face the consequences.

WH Smith, a prominent presence in airports and train stations across Britain, topped the list of companies that fell short on wage payments. They owed over £1 million to 17,607 workers, amounting to approximately £58 per employee. WH Smith attributed the mispayment to a 2019 review by HMRC, which identified the company’s misinterpretation of statutory wage regulations related to uniform policies for store staff. The company promptly rectified the error and reimbursed all affected employees an average of £40 for expenses related to clothing items.

LloydsPharmacy, ranking second on the list, was found to owe more than £900,000 to nearly 8,000 workers. The underpayment was also unintentional and linked to the company's uniform rules. LloydsPharmacy acted swiftly to rectify the issue, reimbursing the affected employees and updating their uniform policy to prevent a recurrence.

Marks & Spencer came in third place among the companies found to have incorrectly paid their workers, owing just over £100 each to 5,363 employees, totalling £578,000. The retail giant clarified that it was named due to an unintentional technical issue that occurred over four years ago, specifically related to weekly payments for some temporary workers. They asserted that their minimum hourly pay has always been above the national minimum wage and that no employees were ever underpaid due to this issue.

Sainsbury's, the parent company of Argos, acknowledged a violation dating back to 2012, before they acquired the catalogue chain. The supermarket launched an investigation and promptly addressed the problem upon its identification in 2018. Sainsbury's integrated Argos into their systems to prevent such issues from recurring and emphasised the significant investment made in colleague pay, resulting in a 53% increase in the Argos colleague hourly rate over the past seven years.

Kevin Hollinrake, the minister for enterprise, markets, and small business, acknowledged that while not all minimum wage underpayments were intentional, there is no excuse for underpaying workers. He stressed that paying the legal minimum wage is non-negotiable and businesses - regardless of their size - should know better than to shortchange hard-working staff. Hollinrake's message to the minority of companies disregarding the law was clear: pay your staff properly or face the consequences.

The fines imposed on these companies highlight the importance of adhering to minimum wage regulations and treating employees fairly. The government's list of employers penalized for minimum wage breaches between 2017 and 2019 included 202 businesses, amounting to nearly £5 million in underpayments. While unintentional breaches may occur, the government stressed that there is no excuse for underpaying workers.

The release of this list could have reputational implications for the companies involved, even if the underpayments were unintentional. Employers who have minimal or unclear communication with their workforce regarding these breaches risk employees seeking further investigation from organisations like the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) or HMRC, potentially leading to disruptions in their workforce.

To assist employees in verifying their pay, HMRC has established a dedicated portal. This initiative aims to ensure that workers are aware of their rights and can report any discrepancies in their wages to the appropriate authorities. By holding companies accountable for their wage practices, the UK government aims to create a fair and equitable work environment for all employees.