In order to have arrears of £1000 they would need to have spent £2326 on salary sacrifice. That's £45 per week on salary sacrifice. Only dental, travel and health insurance have been available.
You've missed pensions and AVC's.
Correct. I was trying to show that the pension deductions are not the root cause. A normal work schedule with £50 of AVC may not breach or may breach slightly. A Wallington work schedule with a £50 AVC will breach heavily.
I wonder how you could show the workings but RM can't or won't
There are apparently 9,000 people who want an explanation, with probably 9,000 unique reasons for their particular amount when you consider it's an aggregation of wage data from 52 weeks of pay.
Providing breakdowns would raise more questions than it provided answers.
If it's taken an external company three months to analyse the data from last year and arrive at a figure per person, I don't imagine someone who doesn't really know the detail would have a very good time trying to analyse the results and explain them to someone else who also doesn't understand the data.
In order to have arrears of £1000 they would need to have spent £2326 on salary sacrifice. That's £45 per week on salary sacrifice. Only dental, travel and health insurance have been available.
You've missed pensions and AVC's.
Correct. I was trying to show that the pension deductions are not the root cause. A normal work schedule with £50 of AVC may not breach or may breach slightly. A Wallington work schedule with a £50 AVC will breach heavily.
The AVC isn't the issue, the work schedule is.
Yeah, it's the seasonal hours thing. People worked longer hours last winter then they stopped it
It’s not free money though, if it was you wouldn’t be getting it
It is essentially free money. They are paid for their normal week when they are taking their accumulated days off. It's just a quirk of the minimum wage legislation that means they are getting extra (and it is extra) money.
While it's hardly equitable, it does at least mean RM are being screwed for once (albeit for a tiny amount, relatively speaking).
Martin's explanation doesn't mention seasonal hours, instead it's linked to the Wallington shift pattern, ie banking hours in advance of taking the extra time off.
It's to do with mistake from HMRC over working time in lieu to get your rota week off. They think that those extra hours take you below minimum wage, despite the fact that all full timers (regardless of rota) are actually all doing 37 hours a week. There was no under payment.
Basically everyone who got a pay out has been given free money from Royal Mail. In our office it ranges from a couple of hundred to around £4000. If you did more overtime, you got less money.
Everyone should have gotten the same amount as we are all on the same hourly rate (part time shifts should get something pro-rata). It's created an imbalance amongst the staff and we should be joining together to ensure that all full-timers (regardless of shift structure) get the same amount as the highest paid out person who got this money.
It's to do with mistake from HMRC over working time in lieu to get your rota week off. They think that those extra hours take you below minimum wage, despite the fact that all full timers (regardless of rota) are actually all doing 37 hours a week. There was no under payment.
Basically everyone who got a pay out has been given free money from Royal Mail. In our office it ranges from a couple of hundred to around £4000. If you did more overtime, you got less money.
Everyone should have gotten the same amount as we are all on the same hourly rate (part time shifts should get something pro-rata). It's created an imbalance amongst the staff and we should be joining together to ensure that all full-timers (regardless of shift structure) get the same amount as the highest paid out person who got this money.
Not quite.
It's not a mistake, but it is related to rota weeks off. Rota workers work an AVERAGE of 37hrs per week (or however many hours their contract is), but work longer hours on each of the weeks their week off doesn't fall in, so they're working more hours than paid. HMRC doesn't care for averages, the regulations are written in a way that each week has to be looked at independent of the other weeks, therefore according to HMRC rota workers are being paid fewer hours than worked in five of their six rotation weeks, and if the stars align correctly that can take them below nmw.
Everyone should absolutely NOT get the same amount. It's a payment to ensure compliance, nothing more, nothing less.
I wonder how you could show the workings but RM can't or won't
There are apparently 9,000 people who want an explanation, with probably 9,000 unique reasons for their particular amount when you consider it's an aggregation of wage data from 52 weeks of pay.
Providing breakdowns would raise more questions than it provided answers.
If it's taken an external company three months to analyse the data from last year and arrive at a figure per person, I don't imagine someone who doesn't really know the detail would have a very good time trying to analyse the results and explain them to someone else who also doesn't understand the data.
So your saying just trust RM to get it right even though they can't even pay most of us OT correctly without us having to weekly check we're getting what's due, even though it's all been written down for them in black & white?
So your saying just trust RM to get it right even though they can't even pay most of us OT correctly without us having to weekly check we're getting what's due, even though it's all been written down for them in black & white?
I don't think he's quite saying that. But if you are at all unsure, you'd be best to consult a tax expert. If they have all your details, they should be able to give you a correct assessment.
However, I suspect in the vast majority of cases, RM's figure will be correct. They're doing this to comply with the law. It would be mad of them to fudge it, which is probably why they've used a third party rather than have HR scratching their heads over it.
I wonder how you could show the workings but RM can't or won't
There are apparently 9,000 people who want an explanation, with probably 9,000 unique reasons for their particular amount when you consider it's an aggregation of wage data from 52 weeks of pay.
Providing breakdowns would raise more questions than it provided answers.
If it's taken an external company three months to analyse the data from last year and arrive at a figure per person, I don't imagine someone who doesn't really know the detail would have a very good time trying to analyse the results and explain them to someone else who also doesn't understand the data.
So your saying just trust RM to get it right even though they can't even pay most of us OT correctly without us having to weekly check we're getting what's due, even though it's all been written down for them in black & white?
Pretty much, yes.
But DGH is correct - The calculation methodology will have been verified by external auditors and HMRC and any explanation beyond "You were found to have been paid less than nmw in certain weeks" would be oversimplifying an incredibly complex and layered personal scenario (or wouldn't be understood unless the person asking was a qualified HMRC Inspector / someone who had been neck deep in looking at this stuff since April 2025) whilst simultaneously leading to further calls of "We ALL do that shift pattern / contribute that amount to AVCs / receive that payment and we haven't all been paid the same amount!"
Better, from a business perspective, to say "trust me bro".