Work it: HK Employment – October update In this month's round-up of key employment and HR developments, we look at: • • • • •
National Minimum Wage: new rates from 1 October 2016 Shared parental leave: does enhanced pay bring increased risks? Holiday pay: the latest developments What's on the horizon? Howard Kennedy Employment in the news
National Minimum Wage: new rates for under 25 year-olds from 1 October 2016 From 1 October, the National Minimum Wage (NMW) hourly rates for workers aged under 25 will increase as follows: Age 21 – 24
Age 18-20
Age 16-17
Apprentices
Previous rate
£6.70
£5.30
£3.87
£3.30
New rate
£6.95
£5.55
£4.00
£3.40
This does not affect the minimum rate for workers aged 25 and over (the National Living Wage) which remains at £7.20 per hour (but is set to rise in April 2017). Meeting NMW requirements is increasingly a crucial part of reputation management and corporate governance, as well as employment law compliance, in the wake of the controversy over working arrangements at Sports Direct and HMRC's ongoing "name and shame" approach to non-compliant employers. It's essential for businesses and their payroll providers to be on top of the detailed rules, including what can and cannot be deducted and what payments and allowances are taken into account. Our guide to the National Living Wage, addressing these issues, can be found here.
Shared parental leave: does enhanced pay bring increased risks? When the shared parental leave regime was introduced, we warned that businesses offering enhanced pay terms could in some cases face sex discrimination claims. A sex discrimination claim recently succeeded against Network Rail, highlighting this risk, although the facts of the case were unusual. Under Network Rail's shared parental leave policy, eligible mothers and primary adopters were entitled to up to 26 weeks' enhanced shared parental pay paid at full salary, with 13 weeks paid at the statutory rate, while fathers and secondary adopters were entitled to 39 weeks at the statutory rate only. A male employee (whose wife also worked for Network Rail and benefited from the enhanced pay terms) brought a claim alleging that the policy indirectly discriminated against male employees.