Skip to main content

News story

July 12, 2017

Good intentions not enough in wage calculations

Accurate calculations of the National Minimum Wage continue to cause headaches for employers, with an employment tribunal acknowledging the complexity, saying there is no single key to unlock every case.

Errors in wage calculations have recently hit big businesses hard, with unintentional underpayments in staff pay packets affecting major retailers like John Lewis and Tesco, while others have been waiting for an employment tribunal decision on when sleeping night shift staff are eligible for the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

For John Lewis, a staff-friendly policy of aggregated wages to provide regular monthly income has resulted in the company paying £36m for underpayments over six years, despite most underpayments being technical rather than actual. Staff wages were smoothed out over the year, so they received the same amount each month rather than being paid for the exact hours worked. The problem arose when individuals worked extra hours in a month, and the aggregate monthly payment was less than the payment due for the hours worked under the NMW Regulations.

Argos and Tesco have made similar payroll mistakes. Tesco has to compensate 14,000 staff at a cost of £10m for employees who had made salary contributions to pensions, childcare and other schemes, resulting in their pay falling below the National Living Wage level. Tesco has blamed its payroll software for the error, but for many employers, the difficulty lies in correctly interpreting the NMW Regulations.

One such thorny area is payment for employees who sleep overnight in the workplace or who are on call. Previously, such workers were often paid a flat rate for when they were sleeping and their normal hourly rate when they were required to attend to their duties. This approach was challenged on the basis that it did not comply with the NMW Regulations, and three such cases were recently heard together by the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Focus Care Agency Ltd v Roberts, Frudd v The Partington Group Ltd and Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake.

There has been frustration for employers hoping for certainty on the issue, with the Tribunal saying there is no ‘bright line’ and that businesses must conduct a ‘multifactorial evaluation’. Their findings highlighted four key factors.

  1. The reason for engaging the worker

    Suppose an employee is onsite to comply with a regulatory or contractual obligation. In that case, the individual is more likely to be classed as working throughout their whole shift, even if they are asleep or have nothing to do.
  2. Restrictions on the worker’s activities

    If a worker would be disciplined for failing to remain on standby, for example, by leaving the premises, then the NMW is more likely to apply than in situations where someone can come and go as they please.
  3. The degree of responsibility

    If a worker is required to keep a listening ear and respond, such as a care worker, they are more likely to be treated as ‘working’ than someone who is at home on-call.
  4. The immediacy of the requirement to provide services

    This includes both the speed and the level of responsibility of a worker. If they are the ones who will decide whether to intervene and then take action, they are more likely to be categorised as working than someone who is woken and instructed by the responsible member of staff.

Employment lawyer, Karen Cole, noted:

“The Tribunal’s decision highlights just how tricky this area of the law can be, but compliance is a serious business. It is sometimes difficult to understand what’s right and what’s wrong, and borderline cases will be difficult to decide, but if there’s any doubt it pays to investigate further as getting it wrong may mean a company faces claims for back-pay, which can go back six years. As well as the financial costs, there may be enforcement action by HMRC, along with reputational damage.”

The National Living Wage is a premium tier of the NMW for eligible workers over 25.

For those eligible workers under 25, there are further categories of age-related rates. Since April 2017:

  • 25 and over – £7.50
  • 21 to 24 – £7.05
  • 18 to 20 – £5.60
  • Under 18 – £4.05
  • Apprentice – £3.50

Although given as hourly rates, the NMW Regulations apply to any eligible worker, whether or not they are paid by the hour, and wage calculations must be made according to the payment basis. For example, someone paid annually or by piece work can use a formula to calculate the equivalent hourly rate and check if they’re being paid the right amount.

Speak to employment lawyer Karen Cole today about your wage calculations.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Strategic lifetime gifting
    How to minimise your IHT liability during your lifetime.


    Read more
  • Navigating directors’ duties
    Legal responsibilities and risks for UK company directors


    Read more
  • Preparing a business-lasting power of attorney
    In this article, private client solicitor Herman Cheung of West End law firm RIAA Barker Gillette (UK) considers the advantages, needs and practical examples of creating a bu


    Read more
  • Can you make a WhatsApp will?
    Key legal requirements and future outlook.


    Read more
  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Michael, May 2025
    “Very pleased with the services provided by Charlotte Barbaroussis. Particularly found her quick and effective to reply to any queries.”

  • Malcolm & Sheila Blackmore, May 2025
    “My wife and I engaged RIAA Barker Gillette to prepare our wills and LPOA’s. James McMullan and Charlotte Barbaroussis were the epitome of professionalism – responding quickly, talking us through the legalese, clearly answering any

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

Read more
Send this to a friend