Fairness plea for firms found employing illegal workers

14 July 2008

UK employment experts welcome moves by the Government to name and shame businesses that employ illegal workers but only if this penalty is proportional, says Croner.

Since 19 June 2008, the UK Border Agency has published on its website details of employers who have had a civil penalty imposed on them for employing illegal migrant workers. So far, it has published details of firms in England, Scotland and Wales that faced penalties in May 2008.

The civil penalty system began on 29 February 2008. Under it companies are now open to a maximum fine of £10,000 per illegal migrant worker they employ and a maximum two-year prison sentence for offending employers.

Joanne Pitts, employment consultant with Croner, says that publicly shaming those businesses that employ illegal workers will really damage any corporate reputation they may have. While this will ultimately encourage them to stay within the law, she says exceptions should be made for those employers who make a genuine mistake.

The level of civil penalty that is imposed for employing illegal workers varies according to the type of eligibility checks employers have made on their workers, the number of occasions on which a warning has been issued or civil penalty imposed, and the extent to which the employer has co-operated with the UK Border Agency. The framework for penalties is set out in the Code of Practice “Civil Penalties for Employers”.

Croner thinks the decision to publish details of an employer who has been found liable for a penalty should be made in a similar way, taking account of the severity of the employer’s failings.

Employment experts are also asking the Government to sufficiently advertise their move to publicly identify companies so employers are aware of the impact it could have on them. This comes on the back of a noticeable lack of awareness amongst employers of the new requirements and the potential impact of February’s legislation, blamed in part on the UK Border Agency’s poor communication of the changes.