389 Employers Named and Shamed for National Minimum Wage Breaches

On the 19th March 2026, the Government published its latest “naming and shaming” list of employers found to have breached National Minimum Wage (NMW) and National Living Wage (NLW) requirements, with 389 employers identified.

National Minimum Wage: Named and Shamed

389 employers have been named and shamed by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) for a variety of breaches of their legal obligation to pay their employees at least the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage.

High-profile names were amongst the list and include ISS, Busy Bees Nurseries, Bupa Care Services, Hays Travel, Amey and Costa.

Approximately 60,000 workers were found to have been underpaid around £7.3 million by the 389 employers named and shamed, with those employers named being fined over £12.6 million for breaches of the National Minimum Wage and the National Living Wage.

The employers on the list faced financial penalties of up to 200% of the underpayment, capped at £20,000 per worker. While formal enforcement is generally limited to a six-year recovery period, the naming and shaming regime can extend far beyond that, capturing historic breaches uncovered during investigations.

The top 10 of the 389 employers named and shamed on the list of those who failed to pay the National Minimum Wage and the National Living Wage, were as follows:-

A New Era of Enforcement: The Fair Work Agency

New changes are due to come into effect in terms of enforcement from April 2026

On the 7th April 2026, the Government will formally establish the Fair Work Agency (FWA), a new single enforcement body created under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

The FWA will replace the current fragmented system by bringing together the following into one central regulator.:

• HMRC’s National Minimum Wage enforcement function
• the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
• the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority

Accordingly, for the first time, enforcement of the National Minimum Wage, holiday pay and statutory sick pay will sit under a single authority, significantly widening the scope of state enforcement.

The FWA will have enhanced powers, which will include the ability to:

• investigate employers and enter premises
• require access to payroll records and interview staff
• issue notices of underpayment covering up to six years
• impose penalties of up to 200% of the underpayment
• require arrears to be repaid within a fixed timeframe

Alongside these structural changes, the Government has confirmed that it will continue to publish naming and shaming lists, accompanied by educational bulletins aimed at helping employers avoid common technical errors.

Historical Breaches

Nevertheless, once again, the vast majority of the cases relate to historical breaches of the National Minimum Wage regulations, with all of the breaches occurring between 2016 and 2023, and with many of the largest cases concentrated in the period 2017–2020.

Hence, by the time of the publication of the naming and shaming list on the 19th March 2026, the overwhelming majority of the employers named have long since:

• repaid affected workers in full
• addressed the technical cause of the breach
• updated payroll systems and compliance processes

Accordingly, this is not a list of employers currently underpaying staff the National Minimum Wage. It instead relates to cases so dated that they provide limited insight into the current conduct of the businesses involved. Moreover, it raises an important question as to whether the greater failing lies in technical breaches by employers, or in the inability to present enforcement data in a timely and meaningful way.

The original purpose of the naming and shaming scheme was to provide a timely deterrent, exposing employers who were actively breaching National Minimum Wage laws in order to drive immediate compliance. Quite clearly, that objective is not being met.

Publishing breaches from five to ten years ago:

• does not identify current non-compliance
• does not protect workers in the present
• does not incentivise immediate behavioural change

Punitive Exposure, Not Effective Enforcement

By publishing these historic cases so late, the scheme shifts from being a forward-looking enforcement tool to a retrospective reputational sanction.

The adverse consequences are real:

• Unnecessary reputational damage to businesses now fully compliant
• Avoidable negative commercial and investor impact
• Damage to the wider economy, business closures, and job losses

Restoring Credibility To A Broken System

For the naming and shaming regime to retain credibility, it must return to its original purpose: targeting employers who are currently in breach, not those whose issues were resolved years ago.

A timely approach ensures that enforcement delivers real protection for workers while preserving fairness for businesses that have already rectified historic errors. Without that immediacy, the scheme risks drifting into retrospective punishment rather than meaningful compliance.

Refocusing on present-day breaches would strengthen deterrence, improve transparency, and reinforce confidence in the system. Only by addressing current wrongdoing can naming and shaming fulfil its true function - holding active offenders to account, rather than revisiting matters long since resolved.