Ghosting, Phoenix companies and other grim tales of unpaid Britain

While people flock to see the latest supernatural creatures in JK Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, real life shape-shifters and disappearing acts receive much less attention. People are being ‘ghosted’ by former employers who owe them wages or redundancy payments, and even more galling, some employers, rising phoenix like from the ashes of the previous companies, later reappear trading under a new name to avoid payment.

Successive reforms of the Employment Tribunal (ET) system have made it increasingly difficult to take up complaints regarding underpayment and the abuse of employment rights, allowing much poor treatment of employees to go unpunished. The weakening of unfair dismissal protection in 2012, and the imposition for the first time of a substantial fee to bring claims in 2013 were justified as discouraging ‘vexatious claims’ said to be costly, time consuming, and creating a fear factor for employers. However, there is little evidence that this was ever a significant problem, and is likely to be particularly rare in underpayment cases which generally involve relatively straightforward decisions for tribunals. Even prior to the current fee structure, there were significant barriers to would-be claimants. A number of studies have found that only a small proportion of people experiencing problems at work do anything formal to resolve them, never mind take legal action.

New research by a team (including the author) at the Universities of Strathclyde and Bristol has given voice to those attempting to resolve work-related grievances via the increasingly complex, legalistic world of ETs. Researchers recruited 158 clients who presented with employment problems at Citizens’ Advice Bureaux (CAB) (access points to those who generally cannot easily afford a lawyer or access trade union services). Researchers followed participants across the course of their disputes, logging their thoughts, hopes, fears, struggles and successes, interviewing them at several points. The sample tended to be low-paid workers in elementary occupations; working in the private sector (with contract cleaning and agency work generally featuring heavily as offenders) and who had never been members of trade unions. The gathered data includes harrowing stories of peoples’ struggles to resolve their employment disputes.

Around a third of participants reported an underpayment issue as one of the problems for which they sought advice. Problems included quite straightforward disputes regarding owed wages or holidays involving hourly paid staff which may have been simple down to a mistake on behalf of the employers (e.g. disputes over how many hours had been worked).  More complex disputes included participants enquiring about owed wages or unpaid overtime and then finding themselves dismissed or no longer being provided with any hours of work. CAB advisers saw some underpayment problems so frequently, (sometimes from the same employers) that they looked likely to be deliberate strategies, such as agencies neglecting to pay holiday pay until challenged. Such employers would often pay up as soon as a tribunal claim was lodged, though not before the time and attention of the tribunal system was expended to bring them into line.

Working at the bottom end of the labour market was for some participants not only precarious (in temporary jobs) and lowly paid, but ended up being completely unpaid. Doug, was encouraged by the Job Centre to take a job in construction with a small firm. He worked for several weeks without pay before his employer disappeared. When he returned to the Job Centre to complain and seek advice “they didn’t want to know”. Telling him, “‘that’s between you and the employer it’s nothing to do with us’, basically… I felt they couldn’t care less. ” Doug had thought that “being through the Job Centre” the job “was above board, but obviously it wasn’t.” Doug found his way to the CAB, and submitted an ET claim with their help. Initially the employer denied that Doug had worked for them, before ceasing trading and finally disappearing. Doug gave up chasing the £1000 he was owed.

Doug was effectively ‘ghosted’, by his former employer. People take a job, work for a few weeks (sometimes months) in good faith that their pay will be forthcoming, until their employer (usually a micro firm of less than ten employees), disappears without paying them a penny. When the worker attempts to make enquires, phone calls and emails are no longer answered. The employer,  then appears in a new guise, a phenomenon Citizens’ Advice and other campaign groups are referring to as perpetrated by ‘phoenix’ companies, rising from the flames of supposedly insolvent, burned-out companies. In other cases employers claimed insolvency, often meaning that participants were able to make a claim to the government’s Insolvency Fund, although they were not always able to obtain the full amount they were owed.

Around half of participants with underpayment problems attempted to take legal action, and so are slightly more likely than others to take action (the overall figure was closer to a third). There could be several reasons for this:  firstly, individuals were usually reliant upon the money owed, 2) the claim, being more straightforward may seem easy to win, 3) claimants have a clearer sense of certainty regarding their ‘right’ to take the employer to tribunal. That said, participants often saw a symbolic quality in making claims for unpaid wages. Cheryl, a nursery assistant, wanted £400 of notice pay back on ‘principle’: “I’d worked it and earned it, so I should have it. Even if it was hundred pound or a thousand pound… I thought I’m not going to let this lie, ‘cause it’s money I deserve to get.’

While the certainty of being clearly ‘in the right’ may generally be stronger among those who feel they are owed wages than those claiming unfair dismissal or discrimination, the underpaid  are not necessarily immune from crises of confidence regarding taking legal action. Cheryl, was plagued by doubt and shame at taking legal action. She felt ‘actually quite embarrassed… the only people I told were really close friends and family… I think people often assume there’s something worse to the case when you say, “the tribunal court.” They think, your first employer, ‘that’s a bit much!’’ Problems that should be considered illegal may be conceived as ‘dumb luck’. ETs appear are a highly discouraging prospect to most lay-people. Any relish that might be taken in reaching them usually relates to placing employers who feel they are untouchable in front of ETs.

Of the twenty known outcomes for underpayment cases at ET in the study, ten were successful, seven settled (mostly favourably for participants), and 3 were withdrawn. However, only one of the ten successful awards was received without using formal enforcement procedures, and three of the successful participants never obtained the money owed. Some participants did not feel it was worth ‘throwing good money after bad.’

While the amounts of money owed were the difference between keeping them above the breadline or not, hourly-waged workers barely had the time to attend their own tribunal hearings because of new jobs or job-seeking efforts. For them dreaming-up far-fetched accusations against employers, who may be hard to track down and unwilling or unable to pay in any case would be absurd.

 

 

The disappearing payslip

I recently took part in an HMRC “webinar” on the National Minimum Wage, offering help and support to union reps wishing to assist members enforce their rights. During the course of this, participants were told of the importance of checking payslips to see if workers had been properly paid.

This confirms views expressed by some of the advisors interviewed in the early stages of Unpaid Britain, and my own experience assisting workers in the past. The payslip is an important piece of evidence in identifying errors, unpaid wages and unlawful deductions, and its absence is usually a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the employment relationship.

The general right to “written pay advice” dates back to the 1960 Payment of Wages Act, and the requirements have changed little since. Then, gross pay, net pay and any deductions had to be shown, and this remains the case now under Section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However there is no requirement in law to show how the gross figure has been calculated – by showing the number of hours worked and the hourly rate of pay for example. Unions have argued that this can leave workers with insufficient information to assess whether they have been paid enough. In the latest Low Pay Commission (LPC) report (para 66), the LPC have taken note of these points and recommended (not for the first time) that the government consider requiring that payslips of hourly-paid workers should include the number of hours for which they are being paid.

But the absence of details on a payslip is not the only problem. The absence of a payslip at all seems to be a growing problem – and in London the effect is particularly marked (see chart)[1]. Our analysis of data from the official Family Resource Survey, shows that one in four employees in London does not receive a physical payslip, 15% because it is now said to be provided in electronic form, and over 10% because workers report that their employer does not provide one at all.employees-with-no-payslips-correct-real

Unlawful

There are two troubling aspects to this. Firstly the failure to provide a payslip is unlawful, and could (if taken to an Employment Tribunal) result in the award of a penalty. This is explained by Unpaid Britain Advisory Group member Jo Seery of Thompsons Solicitors:

“Where a tribunal finds that un-notified deductions have been made in the 13 week period immediately preceding the… claim being lodged, [they] may order the employer to pay a sum not exceeding the aggregate of the un-notified deductions … So a tribunal could order the sum of tax and NI contributions be paid by the employer where these have been deducted but not notified to the employee.” 

As Jo also points out, for those workers whose earnings are below National Insurance or tax thresholds, there is no penalty for a failure to provide. And in my experience, employers will often “discover” the missing payslips and provide them before any ET hearing, thus avoiding any penalty. Where the employer has disappeared, or is insolvent, or resists recovery attempts, the penalty is neither here nor there because even if it is awarded, it will not be paid.

Without payslips, employers may deny that those claiming owed wages were ever employed by them, or were employed by other associated companies. Workers who suspect that NI or tax deductions were not paid to HMRC have little to support them when they attempt to ensure that their contributions record is correct. This may have serious consequences for pension and benefit entitlements, and for migrants seeking to establish residency rights (for which the paperwork requirements are ridiculously stringent).

Workers suspecting contributions are not being paid over by their employer can complain to the tax authorities (HMRC) via their “tax evasion hotline”, or online, or by post although “HMRC won’t reply to confirm they’ve received your letter”[2].  Workers using this method may never find out what steps have been taken to rectify matters, so as an enforcement method, this leaves something to be desired.

Employers are also required by law to maintain records to demonstrate that they are paying at least the National Minimum Wage (NMW), and although workers may have the right to inspect these, so too do NMW inspectors. Failure to maintain such records is a criminal offence, but there do not appear to have been any prosecutions for this.

Digital

The shift to electronic payslips presents separate problems. Most employment lawyers seem to agree that this probably fulfils the legal requirement, as long as the opportunity is afforded to workers to access a computer to see their payslips. However, in the real world of aggressive management, many workers will be reluctant to assert this right, even if it is notionally available. Secondly, while it is true that many workers now have smart phones or tablets and can easily access their employers’ system, or open the attachment to an e-mail, or the SMS message (this is apparently used by some employers), not all will be able to do so. And even if they do, does the system permit the worker to save a copy, so that if they leave the employer, they have a record of deductions?

Respondents in Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals surveys are asked if e-distribution is under consideration by those not already using it, and in the latest survey available (2103/14), 23 out of 62 said it was. From this admittedly rather small sample, it seems likely that there is a continuing trend towards the use of digital payslips, with serious implications for workers who have problems with access to technology, and for the use of payslips as evidence.

Enforcement

There is clearly a case for making the required format of payslips more detailed – providing hours worked, and holidays outstanding, for example – and a case for unions to keep an eye on the design and administration of pay systems, ensuring that workers are aware of the need to check and retain payslips (and that they can easily do so).

But union coverage is partial, particularly in the private sector, so penalties for non-provision need to be dissuasive, and accessible. This means no Employment Tribunal fees! Providing reliable routes for workers to complain of non-provision of payslips, and a system of inspection of payslips could both help to identify other abuses of workers’ rights and be of benefit to the exchequer.

[1] Of the UK regions, Wales is worst with 14.3% reporting no pay slip and a further 12.7% receiving an electronic version. London showed the second highest proportion. Nationally, 8.6% of workers report receiving no payslip, and 11.6% an electronic one (2014/15 figures).

[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/reporting-tax-evasion, accessed 23 June 2016

Worker’s Status

A worker who has not been paid their wages has the right to bring a claim in an Employment Tribunal (ET) for an unlawful deduction from wages.

But who is a worker?

The law states a worker is someone who personally performs any work or services under a contract of employment or any other contract, provided that the worker is not in business on their own account (i.e is genuinely self-employed).

The legal definition of a worker is important because workers have some employment rights (see Box on Employment Rights) including a right to be paid the national minimum wage and the right to pursue a claim for unlawful deduction from wages in an Employment Tribunal if they have not been paid the wages they are owed including, for example, if they have not been paid holiday pay.

This compares with those who are genuinely self-employed (i.e. in business on their own account), who do not have those same employment rights.

Employers in the new ‘gig economy’ often categorise those working for them as self-employed.  For example, taxi drivers, couriers and cleaners are often given contracts or “written terms” stipulating that they are “independent contractors” or are “self-employed”.  In other cases, there may be nothing in writing at all other than the fact that the company classifies them as self-employed.

With reports of couriers having pay deducted because they have not made a delivery within the allotted hour or not being paid for the last shift because they did not accept a job in the last minute before their shift ended, those working in this sector are often unclear as to what action they can or cannot take to recover pay that is rightly due to them.

The correct categorisation of the working relationship is all-important in determining whether someone is a worker and therefore is able to take action to recover unpaid wages.

Case law has held that there are two key elements to determining whether someone is a worker.  The person must:

  • Provide personal service; and
  • There must be mutuality of obligations between the parties.

What is personal service?

At one level establishing that someone provides personal service seems relatively easy.  Surely, if you are asked to do the work and you do it there is no problem? However, some employers claim that those that work for them have the freedom to get others to do the work for them – during periods of sickness or holidays, for example.  This, the employers claim, means that the person can provide a substitute who can do the work for them, so they are not required to carry out personal service.  In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, the company provided car valeters with a written contract which stipulated that the car valeters were “entitled to engage one or more individuals to carry out the valeting” on their behalf.  However, in practice, it is difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to find anyone else to do the work or at least anyone whom the company is willing to accept.  If that is the reality then there is every chance they are in fact providing personal service and so satisfy the first step in establishing that they are a worker.

What is mutuality of obligation?

This is the obligation on the employer to provide work and a correlating obligation on the person to accept work when it is offered.

Many of those working in the new “gig economy” are  sold the idea of self-employment on the basis that they can decide when they want to work and that they can be their own boss.  However, when there is rent to pay, food and clothes to buy the ability to choose not to work is often no choice at all.

The reality is that if work is not accepted when it is offered not only will there be no pay but the person is unlikely to be offered any further work in the future.  So, in practice, people rarely refuse work when it is offered.

The profits companies stand to make from the self-employed similarly means that in most cases the company is obliged to offer work to stay in business.  An article in the Guardian dated 18 July 2016 on delivery firm, Hermes, revealed that pre-tax profits of £36 billion in the year February 2015 was the product of a workforce of couriers, 84% of whom were self-employed!

The question then is, can a company write into a contract terms which would prevent someone from claiming they are a worker?

Generally a written contract is seen as sacrosanct when determining the working relationship.

In Stevedoring and Haulage Services Limited v Fuller and Ors, (albeit a case which concerned employee status rather than worker status), the contractual terms expressly stated that work would be provided on an ad hoc basis with “no obligation on the part of the company to provide work nor for [you] to accept any work so offered”.  The Court said that there was no scope for implying a positive obligation on the parties to offer work and for work to be accepted where to do so would contradict the express terms.

But that was back in 2001.  Today the Courts take a dim view of employers relying on contractual terms to deny workers employment rights where the terms do not reflect the reality of the working relationship.

Contracts which do not represent the reality of the situation are now recognised to be sham contracts.  A sham contracts as expressed in the case of Consistent Group Limited v Kalwak is a contract where “the reality of the situation is that no one seriously expects that a worker will seek to provide a substitute or refuse the work offered, the fact that the contract expressly provides for these unrealistic possibilities will not alter the true nature of the relationship”.

In many cases for workers in the new “gig economy” the written terms or the written contract will not represent the reality. Anyone unsure of the status of their working relationship and associated employment rights should join and seek the advice of a trade union who can advise on this hugely important issue.

 Employment Rights Box

Statutory Rights Employee Worker Self Employment
Dismissal Y
Redundancy Y
Notice Y
Maternity Leave Y
Parental Leave Y
Fixed Term Employment Y
National Minimum Wage Y Y
Protected Disclosure Y Y
Working Time Y Y
Part time work Y Y
Right to be Accompanied Y Y
Unlawful deduction from wages Y Y
Protection from discrimination because of a protected characteristic Y Y Y

Unpaid wages to unpaid benefits

When does a job count as ‘work’? This question is pressing across the EU (which at time of writing includes the UK and will do so whatever the result on Thursday 23rd for some time to come)[1]. While free movement across EU member states is the right of most EU citizens, the right of residence for longer than three months is for self-sufficient (i.e. wealthy) people and for workers and their family members. The EU citizen is paradigmatically a worker citizen. According to the EU a person must be in ‘genuine and effective’ work, but the question of what constitutes genuine and effective work is largely settled at a national level. In the UK from 1 March 2014 one of the tests for work being genuine and effective was that earnings exceed the national insurance threshold for 3 months, or £153 a week. Notably this was, at the time, considerably more than the wages of apprentices, raising the question of whether their work is considered ‘genuine and effective’. Given European Economic Area  (EEA) nationals’ concentration in low-waged jobs in sectors such as hotel and catering, cleaning, agriculture and social and childcare, where zero-hours contracts, agency and temporary working are rife, this kind of threshold is likely to prove challenging. It also means that unpaid wages become unpaid benefits. EEA migrants who lose their jobs can claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) as a worker only if they have been in ‘genuine and effective’ work for the three months before making their claim. If they have not been paid enough money to count as workers then they will not be eligible.

The welfare consequences of this definition are perverse even following the government’s logic.  An EEA national who passes the test to count as a worker for the purposes of claiming JSA can claim for a maximum of 6 months before being required to pass a Genuine Prospect of Work Test. To pass this, they must provide ‘compelling evidence’ that that they will receive an offer ‘imminently’ for work of a type that is considered ‘genuine and effective’. To be eligible for benefit an EEA national must have a genuine chance of finding genuine and effective work in the labour market sector that is relevant to their previous experiences. In contrast, as the guidance for JSA decision makers on sanctions makes clear, resident UK nationals must be prepared to do any work, irrespective of whether it is genuine and effective, or whether it is in a sector that is of interest to them. Indeed citizens are finding welfare rights they took for granted increasingly circumscribed. There has been an increase in the use of sanctions for failure to comply with work-related conditions. In written evidence submitted to the House of Commons Work and Pensions committee inquiry into benefit sanctions policy, David Webster found that the total number of sanctions issued to people claiming JSA and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) before reconsiderations/appeals in the year to June 2014 was an estimated 1,030,000. That is not a typo. In the summary of his evidence, Webster described the system as ‘a huge secret penal system, rivalling in its severity the mainstream judicial system but without the latter’s safeguards’. For someone who works on immigration this is eerily familiar territory.

Prime Minister Cameron has often referred to immigration and welfare benefits as ‘two sides of the same coin. It is difficult to see both sides of a coin at the same time, but as the EU referendum has demonstrated, we badly need to connect exclusions from formal citizenship (migration) with exclusions within formal citizenship (unemployment, exploitation, and other forms of marginalisation).  The urgency of this political project is palpable.

 

 

 

 

[1] This article was written on the 21/06/2016 this was before the EU referendum vote took place.

The delinquent employers’ dilemma: settle or dissolve?

Employment rights in the news

Last week two very interesting (from Unpaid Britain’s perspective) stories hit the headlines. In the first, Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct, admitted that 15 minutes of pay was deducted from workers who arrived at work even a minute late. This is a high-profile example of the low-level “gaming” of employment contracts which Unpaid Britain is studying.  The second story saw former Chelsea FC doctor Eva Carneiro  accept a settlement from Chelsea shortly before she was due to testify to an Employment Tribunal (ET). The latter story illustrates a particular phenomenon which we have been examining, as this blog will attempt to explain.

The Employment Tribunal

Since March 2016 we have been analysing Employment Tribunal cases brought before London and Watford tribunal offices for unauthorised deductions from wages. This has so far involved a two week stint at the Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal registry. Even though employment tribunal judgements are public records they can only be accessed via terminals located in the basement of Bury St Edmunds county court. There, surrounded by disintegrating boxes containing paper copies of ET judgements, we went about selecting a random sample of judgments from London for the years 2012 and 2014 (before and after the introduction of fees). Details (parties, jurisdictions, general outcome) of the judgements had to be copied from an old computer screen onto our laptops (no digital downloads!). Then we had to find and scan the paper copies of the judgements. This was a lengthy task; many copies of the judgement are mis-filed and some are absent.

ET computers  ET roling Stacks

Companies House

Back at Middlesex, we reviewed the Companies House databases for the respondent companies named in the judgements. We sought to identify the company’s status, sector and identity of their directors. Companies House has two database systems, of which Beta is the more detailed. However many of the companies don’t appear on it especially if they had been dissolved a few years previously, so a constant transition between Beta and the second (WebCheck) is required.

Half way through this process we decided to examine our findings so far, and they suggest something very interesting about employers who settle.

Preliminary Findings[1]

What is interesting is the marked difference between the status of companies for the different outcomes of claims. Where the case has been “dismissed on withdrawal”, dismissed on settlement (as in the Carneiro case) or fails at a hearing the company is most likely to be still active. Where there is a default judgement (usually occurring when the respondent i.e. the company doesn’t respond to the claim or appear at the Tribunal) or the workers’ claim was successful the company is most likely to be dissolved through insolvency or other means.  What does this reveal regarding these companies intention, or the prospects of workers recovering their wages?

Dismissal on Withdrawal

21% of outcomes out of our preliminary sample were “dismissed on withdrawal”, meaning the “claimant informs the Tribunal through writing or in the course of a hearing that the claim or part of the claim is withdrawn”, following which the Tribunal issues a judgement ruling that the claim is dismissed. This leaves the actual outcome in terms of whether the worker was successful in getting their money unknown.  A case might be settled informally, or in cases such as that of Eva Carneiro a settlement was reached during proceedings and be classified as dismissed on withdrawal. Members from the Unpaid Britain project’s Advisory group call this type of settlement “napkin cases”, when a settlement is agreed and in some cases scribbled onto a napkin just before or during a hearing. However a dismissal on withdrawal could also occur where the claimant no longer wanted to pursue the case, (for reasons such as stress or feeling that the claim might not succeed).

Settlement

Where settlements take place, it may be assumed that the worker received  at least some of their money, but judgements stating that a settlement has occurred are the smallest group amongst our sample. We had many more cases classified as “dismissed on withdrawal”, and  wanted to investigate the likelihood that these had  been withdrawn due to a settlement occurring (this had been suggested to us by legal advisors). To do this we chose to compare the status of respondent companies where we know a settlement has occurred with that of those in cases withdrawn on dismissal. We found the Companies House status of respondents in cases dismissed on settlement to be very similar to those dismissed on withdrawal, with around 80% of companies still being active.  This is in contrast to the profile of other groups of respondents.

Default Judgements and successes

Looking at cases that were Default Judgements the majority of companies appear to have been dissolved, with only a small minority still active. This may not be that surprising: if they are about to be or are already insolvent, employers may be unable or reluctant to defend the case. However where the claim was heard and succeeded (the most common outcome) the majority of respondent companies are now either dissolved or insolvent – only around 30% are still active. Research done by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills  in 2013 found that only 32% of claimants whose unpaid wage claims were successful were paid in full. Larger companies were more likely than small ones to pay awards, and this may be explained by widespread use of insolvency and limited liability to evade payment.

Failed claims

In cases which were heard, but the claim failed, our preliminary findings show that 94% of respondent companies are still active.

What the findings suggest

These findings suggest to us that the majority of cases that are “dismissed on withdrawal” are actually settled before or during the hearing.

One further hypothesis is that if an employer expects to pay the money to their workers they are likely to settle before the hearing, only going ahead with a hearing where they are confident of winning. Settling reduces litigation costs for employers, especially if the unpaid wages claim is linked to other claims such unfair dismissal or discrimination.  Cases classified as being dismissed on withdrawal leave no evidence of guilt of non-payment. This enables the employer to maintain their image both in terms of brand as well as to other employees. Thus systematic non-payment of wages can carry on unnoticed/unchallenged.

Where employers have no intention of paying, however, they may simply fail to defend, leading to a default judgement, or go to a hearing and use insolvency and limited liability to protect directors from any personal cost. It could also be that losing the ET case pushes the company into insolvency, but given that most unpaid wages claims are for few hundred pounds, this could only apply in a minority of cases.

Although we still have a lot of work to do to understand the phenomenon of non-payment and employment tribunal claims, these preliminary findings are consistent with there being a group of employers who “game” the system with apparent impunity.

For the time being we will keep you all updated. Any comments on this blog or our research are as always greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

[1] The preliminary findings are based on 205 cases including unpaid wage claims, predominantly made in 2012, and for which the respondent company’s identity has been located at  Companies House. The most common outcome in these cases is that the case has been “dismissed upon withdrawal”.

Unpaid Britain Project Towards a typology of non-payment

Towards a typology of non-payment summary 

A paper proposing a typology of non-payment of wages has been prepared for discussion at a workshop on 9th May.  This typology (following revision as a result of the workshop) will be used to help us pick case studies for the next stage of our research.

The full paper outlines categories which have been produced by other authors (including state regulators), and discusses factors considered to have potential relevance to for the construction of the typology. It also includes a brief summary of the Unpaid Britain project, followed by a discussion of the existing data on non-payment.

Click for full paper

The proposed typology of non-payment

Taking into account the various discussions and caveats that are outlined in the above working paper, we find there are four key dimensions to unpaid wages:

Consent; Intent; Means & Magnitude

Means (the way the wages have not been paid) and Magnitude (the size of the sum involved relative to normal earnings) are clearly important. They might determine whether restitution by the worker is pursued, the route by which this occurs, whether there is a role for regulators, and the impact of non-payment. But they are descriptive and determined by the circumstances and intent of the employer, and the degree to which workers’ consent may be given.

typology of non-payment

Non-payment might occur when imposed by circumstances (absence of funds, or catastrophic failure of payment system for example), or as a result of error (data recording mistake), or misinterpretation (misinterpretation of minimum wage regulations etc.)

These are distinct from circumstances where there has either been a decision not to pay, or one (even by default) not to rectify systemic problems which result in non-payment. Interviews suggested strongly that plausible deniability was common, but difficult to detect in official and administrative statistics, because it is feasible to rectify any loss in individual cases without disrupting the model or incurring penalties. This differs from the construction industry “knocking” (complete failure to pay outstanding wages) or deliberate insolvency associated with phoenix companies, in that those are detectable, and (in theory at least) subject to penalties and thus less sustainable as a business model. This could also apply to extreme examples such as forced labour or criminal extortion. These are evident non-payments.

Consent is not a relevant consideration when non-payment is imposed by circumstances, or where there is an error or misunderstanding, but is of significance for purposeful non-payment. The proposed typology separates informed consent, which includes some unlawful, but voluntary contracts and agreed delays to payment, from without consent which would include all other categories (such as not receiving entitlements of which the worker was unaware, as well as the more blatant unauthorised deductions of which they were fully aware).

Unpaid Britain Project Towards a typology of non-payment

Unpaid Britain Typology Workshop

Have you ever had wages withheld or unpaid? Or helped someone who has? As a result of late cancellations, the Unpaid Britain project has two spare places going at our workshop on 9th May, and we would like to fill them with people with direct experience of unpaid wages.

The workshop is intended to help us with our research into this phenomenon. Our next phase will be the selection of case studies to look in detail at the causes, experiences and remedies for unpaid wages. However we feel that this cannot be done effectively without developing a typology of non-payment, to help us choose case studies that illustrate each type. We have developed a draft typology but the time has come for it to be scrutinised, and tested to ensure its robustness.  The Typology workshop will consist of 30 experts from a variety of backgrounds ranging from trade union, employment lawyers, academics, citizens advice, conciliation organisations, think tanks, charitable trusts, monitoring organisations and employers, all of whom have an interest in the subject of non-payment.

Held at Middlesex University’s Hendon Campus, the workshop will start at 12:30 with a light lunch reception, continue until 4.30 and end with a drink and a discussion. There will be short contributions from Anna Kyprianou Dean and Pro-vice chancellor of the Middlesex University Business School, Michael Reed, Principal Legal Officer (Employment) at the Free Representation Unit, Oxford University lecturer Jenny Chan (expert in Labour Rights in China), and project leader Nick Clark. However most of the afternoon will consist of discussions in working groups, as they scrutinise, critique and think of cases that fit or do not fit in to the Typology.

We would love to fill the two places now vacant. If you or any one you know has experience or expertise in the field of non-payment and is interested in attending on the 9th of May please contact us by emailing: e.herman@mdx.ac.uk.