Two solicitors’ firms have been named and shamed as employers that failed to pay the minimum or living wage to some of their staff. In one case the shortfall, due to what the firm called a miscalculation, amounted to roughly 50p per affected employee per week. Bolton-based Adamsons Law and Macclesfield firm Amanda Cunliffe Solicitors featured on a list published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy yesterday of firms ordered by HMRC to top up pay that fell short of minimum rates. The list, of 360 businesses, shows employers who failed to pay eligible workers at least the new living wage rate, currently £7.20 for workers aged 25 and over.According to the list, Adamsons, which specialises in divorce and personal injury cases, failed to pay £3,161.67 to one worker. Compensation claim firm Amanda Cunliffe Solicitors failed to pay £248.39 to five workers.A spokesperson for Amanda Cunliffe Solicitors said it ‘absolutely respects and delivers’ minimum wage requirements.’There was an unfortunate occurrence a number of years ago where minimum wage was not paid as a result of a miscalculation. HMRC worked out the underpayment based on an hourly rate divided by 52.1429 weeks per year as opposed to 52 weeks. Over 100 staff are employed by our firm and we owed less than £50 each to five workers accrued over a two-year period. We addressed and rectified the situation with each of these workers immediately. ‘We fully support the need for minimum wage legislation to protect workers. We have adjusted our systems internally to ensure that a discrepancy like this never happens again,’ they added.Adamsons had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.Business minister Margot James MP said: ‘Every worker in the UK is entitled to at least the national minimum or living wage and this government will ensure they get it. That is why we have named and shamed more than 350 employers who failed to pay the legal minimum, sending the clear message to employers that minimum wage abuses will not go unpunished.’
Dave NatzkeEditorProgressive DairymanEmail Dave [email protected] In May 2017, Eli Lilly/Elanco filed a lawsuit against Arla Foods Inc. USA and Arla Foods Production LLC. At that time, Chief Judge William Griesbach, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, granted Eli Lilly/Elanco’s motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction against Arla Foods and its $30 million “Live Unprocessed” ad campaign.advertisementadvertisementArla’s television and social media ads, launched in late April 2017, featured a child’s animated interpretation of rBST as a six-eyed monster with “razor-sharp horns” and electrified fur.Approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, Elanco markets rBST under the brand name Posilac.In the original injunction, Griesbach further prohibited Arla from claiming that rBST or dairy products made from cows supplemented with rBST are dangerous or unsafe; that dairy products made from milk of cows supplemented with rBST are of lesser quality or less wholesome than other dairy products; or that consumers should not feel “good about eating” or “serving to their friends and family” dairy products made from milk of cows supplemented with rBST. He denied a request requiring Arla to publish “corrective” advertising.In its unanimous 16-page ruling, the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said the lower court was right to conclude that Arla’s ads were likely to mislead consumers about the wholesomeness of products made from milk supplied by rBST-treated cows. A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that Arla Foods can no longer continue its advertising campaign implying its cheeses are safer than their competitors’ because its milk is sourced from cows not supplemented with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), according to Courthouse News Service.