1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

New legislation seeks to ensure restaurant owners give their employees all tips from customers

New legislation is expected to be implemented to ban restaurants from keeping tips from their employees. The intention is restaurant owners will not be able to make deductions from tips which are paid by card in order to fund administration costs.

It is reported that High Street chains regularly take up to 10% of tips paid by credit or debit cards from employees. The issue was initially addressed two years ago in an official review led by the then business secretary, Sajid Javid, although nothing concrete had materialised.

The government is now re-addressing the issue, announcing that UK legislation will not only ensure workers get the tips they deserve, but will also give customers reassurance that the tips they leave are for the service they receive.

The announcement of new legislation is a timely reminder to employers of the protections that employees are entitled to during the course of their employment. Employers should adopt a proactive approach and re-evaluate their tipping procedure in order to avoid non-compliance and reputational risks.

 

 

 

New legislation seeks to ensure restaurant owners give their employees all tips from customers

Could employees be responsible for choosing their auto-enrolment provider?

For those with an interest in pensions and, in particular, the practicalities of auto-enrolment, this week has brought some interesting suggestions on making the whole thing work a little more smoothly. One of the main stumbling blocks to truly integrated pension saving has been that the current auto-enrolment system treats workplace pensions as just that. They are something put in place by your employer and when you change employers your pension pot can be stranded or at the very least difficult to move from place to place. This is inefficient and means that many employees have small savings pots scattered around multiple employers given the way the employment market works in the real world.

Previous suggestions to deal with this have included variants of ‘pot follows member’ whereby there would be an automatic transfer when an employee changes employment, but this runs into immediate issues around member choice and comparative management charges. Why be forced to move to a scheme with a higher annual management charge or one that doesn’t offer the investment choices you want – plus costs!

The new suggestion would be to make what scheme you use for auto-enrolment an employee rather than employer decision. The employee would pick a personal pension plan (that met basic AE requirements) and the employer’s duties would be to pay into that. When the employee moves – the pension moves.

This could potentially kill two birds with one stone. However, as with most pensions issues, this is unlikely to be top of the government’s agenda and there may well be unanticipated wrinkles in the application of the proposal – for example, how will an individual employee pick a good personal pension scheme without financial advice?

Something to watch for.

 

Could employees be responsible for choosing their auto-enrolment provider?

Labour’s plan to force businesses to hand equity to their staff has divided opinion. What would the policy mean for UK businesses?

The shadow chancellor John McDonnell has revealed details of Labour's employee ownership policy which would see every company with more than 250 staff set up an "inclusive ownership fund" (IOF). Under the proposal, an IOF would own up to 10 per cent of the company's equity on its workers' behalf.
Read more »
Labour’s plan to force businesses to hand equity to their staff has divided opinion. What would the policy mean for UK businesses?

Pay gap between younger and older workers

The pay gap between the under-30s and over-30s has risen by more than half in the last 20 years, as younger workers are still enduring the residual effects of the financial crisis.
Read more »
Pay gap between younger and older workers

Supreme Court hears Barnardo’s RPI/CPI Appeal

Dentons' Reward team are advising the Representative Beneficiaries of the Barnardo's Staff Pension Scheme ("the Scheme") in an application to the Supreme Court to decide whether the Scheme rules permit a switch from RPI to CPI for revaluation or indexation of pension payments.
Read more »
Supreme Court hears Barnardo’s RPI/CPI Appeal

All workers to benefit from the right to an itemized payslip

An Order for an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) has now been made. The Order will grant every worker the right to an itemised pay statement from 6 April 2019.
Read more »
All workers to benefit from the right to an itemized payslip

EHRC gender pay gap investigations

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Government informing it that in June it will be commencing the first of its gender pay gap investigations into employers who have failed to comply with their gender pay gap (GPG) reporting obligations. The announcement should not come as a surprise as the EHRC issued a warning prior to 4 April 2018 deadline that any companies which failed to comply with their reporting obligations could face enforcement action in the form of a fine or an investigation.
Read more »
EHRC gender pay gap investigations

Taylor Review – update

The House of Commons Work and Pensions and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees (the Committees) made recommendations in November 2017 for addressing the issues raised in the Taylor Review. These included:
Read more »
Taylor Review – update

The gender pay gap reporting deadline has now passed – so what have we learned?

The deadline passed at midnight last night for private businesses with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay gap report.

More than 10,000 companies have now published their report. Interestingly over 1,100 companies published their report on the day of the deadline, which is more than the total number of companies that reported in the first 326 days of the scheme. Some have argued that such late publishing was, in certain cases, a tactic to bury unflattering results in the last-minute flood of reporting.

From the data published so far we have learned that 78 per cent of companies pay men more than women, 14 per cent pay women more than men and 8 per cent have reported no gender pay gap at all.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, men are paid more than women in every single industry sector, with construction representing the largest gap, followed by finance and insurance.

It is not yet clear what level of punishment those that have failed to publish their pay gap results may face. Though, as we have previously reported on this blog, companies may be named and shamed on a public list on the government portal, and that those that continue to fail to report might ultimately face a summary conviction, be subject to an unlimited fine and be forced to publish the data under a court order.

The gender pay gap reporting deadline has now passed – so what have we learned?

Improving the Pensions Regulator– Increase Powers or Increase Resource?

Recent high profile insolvencies (e.g. Carillion and BHS) have seen widespread criticism of the Pensions Regulator ("TPR"). It stands charged with failure to use its intervention powers despite being aware of companies prioritising dividends over deficit recovery contributions, despite trustees urging it to intervene. By the time TPR took action it was too late.
Read more »
Improving the Pensions Regulator– Increase Powers or Increase Resource?