Background to the SCCS
As social care providers will be aware, on 1 November 2017, the Government announced that it was launching the SCCS for social care providers that may have incorrectly paid workers below National Minimum Wage (NMW) for sleep-in shifts.
By entering the SCCS, social care employers were agreeing to:
Additionally, under the SCCS, providers are also expected to review their pay records more generally, and if identified, set out any other areas of NMW underpayments to their workforce and pay arrears due.
July 2018 Announcement
Following the Court of Appeal judgment in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake, on or around 24 July 2018, HMRC wrote to employers in the SCCS confirming it was considering the implications of the decision and advised that, in the meantime, the following options were available to those in the SCCS:
17 August 2018 Announcement
Finally, and to everyone’s surprise, on 17 August 2018 HMRC confirmed that it decided that it is appropriate to continue to operate the SCCS that all original timeframes and requirements of the scheme remain in place namely:
Worryingly, the announcement from HMRC gives no information on what approach HMRC will take to assessing whether time spent on sleep-ins was working time for NMW purposes. This is particularly concerning as the announcement does state that ‘all original requirements of the scheme remain in place’. Clearly, one of the original requirements was that all sleep-in time should be counted for NMW purposes.
We do not consider that HMRC will, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Mencap, continue the original approach under the SCCS that all sleep-in time should count for NMW purposes. It is clear from the July announcement that HMRC expects providers who continue their self-review to take account of the Court of Appeal Judgement, however, HMRC does not make it clear whether all sleep-in time can be ignored as non-working time. The message from HMRC is confusing, and it appears that its approach will depend on what the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) say in their guidance on Calculating the Minimum Wage. HMRC has indicated that employers in the SCCS will be issued with an updated SCCS Employer guide once the revised Calculating the Minimum Wage is available.
Our comments
We consider that providers now have the following options:
HMRC has confirmed that failure to adhere to the terms or timeframes of the SCCS, or withdrawing from the SCCS, may result in HMRC opening an investigation into your pay practices. For some providers, however, exiting the SCCS may be the best option, and could potentially remove or significantly reduce any historical liability even if the appeal to the Supreme Court is successful.
The disadvantage of a nil declaration is there is no timescale for HMRC to accept or reject that declaration, so if there is a Supreme Court appeal, a provider could be left hanging by HMRC as to whether the declaration has been accepted or not until the Supreme Court judgment is handed down (probably no earlier than summer 2019). This could, therefore, leave those in the SCCS in the continuing state of uncertainty.
The other disadvantage of submitting a declaration is that it will also have to cover non-sleep-in-related NMW issues, and a provider who has not reviewed their records more generally may feel uncomfortable about signing a declaration. However, for providers who know they have some exposure to other issues, it may be advantageous to utilise the scheme and make an appropriate declaration.
Remaining in the SCCS and awaiting a further announcement is a possibility, but the time is now running out for undertaking any self-review with a deadline of 31 December 2018 fast approaching.
For more information on NMW compliance, please get in touch with your usual contact in our employment team. Alternatively, speak to Anna Dabek or Matthew Wort.
In a challenging economic climate with continuing budget cuts and increasing expectations of staff, sickness absence remains an ongoing problem that is important to address.
Social housing providers will routinely have a number of construction projects underway at any one time. It is essential for client teams to understand and avoid key contract management pitfalls.
A recent case stands as a good reminder to employers to be careful when distinguishing between pensionable employment under a pension scheme’s rules and employment under a contract of employment.
By early morning on 3 May, it was clear that there had been a huge change in the composition of many councils across the country.
Following our new partner announcement, it is with great pleasure that we can announce additional promotions.
Even those of us with zero football knowledge will most likely know of the shenanigans at a Chelsea FC game this season.
The gig economy, the tensions between it, and our more established ways of working are rarely far from the news these days.
The case of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford [2019] EWCA Civil 269 will not win awards for excitement but is useful guidance when dealing with workers’ rest periods under the WTR 1998.
Non-UK nationals will surely be worried about an uncertain future, with much still unclear. These feelings will inevitably accompany people to work, and so employers need to be prepared.
Pension disputes in the LGPS need to be dealt with through the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure. Join Doug Mullen for a free 45 minute webinar on getting the process right.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.