How far do employer duties extend?

24 November 2017



Along with global legal practice Eversheds Sutherland, we look at why employers might want to do more than simply meet the legal minimum in terms of their auto enrolment duties.

Our new policy paper - ‘Automatic enrolment and the law – how far do employers’ duties extend’ – summarises current minimum duties on employers to enrol ‘eligible jobholders’ into a pension of a minimum standard, to make the necessary contributions, to notify workers of their rights to opt out and so forth.

But the paper warns that there are three reasons why employers in general, and larger employers in particular, may wish to do more than the legal minimum:

  • There are examples in other countries of employers having to pay damages for their failures with regard to pension provision. In the US, for example, employers have paid out over $350 million in legal settlements since 2009.
  • There is a risk that future regulators and ministers may decide that today’s employers should have gone beyond the basic legal minimum requirements around automatic enrolment, especially if some workers end up getting poor outcomes.
  • Courts may decide, as they have done in other pensions-related legislation, that employers have an ‘implied duty’ to look after their workers and that a minimalist approach to automatic enrolment legislation could fall foul of this test.

The paper highlights several areas where employers should not regard automatic enrolment as a ‘once and done’ activity. These include:

  • Regularly reviewing an automatic enrolment scheme, not just at the point of choosing a scheme but on an ongoing basis. This is especially important given that the whole process of automatic enrolment relies on ‘inertia’ with employees having little active involvement in choosing the provider or default investment strategy. An employer who persisted with a pension provider that was not providing good value to members could face some searching questions in years to come.
  • Ensuring that the scheme chosen provides tax relief to all employees, including those earning below the tax threshold. Employers who choose a scheme which delivers tax relief through the ‘net pay arrangement’ could face challenge as this excludes non-taxpayers from the benefit of tax relief.
  • Helping to protect individuals against making poor decisions. Whilst employers are not under a legal duty to provide financial advice to their employees, courts have implied a duty on employers to provide information to employees about their pension rights where not doing so could lead to an individual suffering financial loss.

Commenting, Steve Webb, Director of Policy at Royal London said:

It is very tempting for employers thinking that once they have chosen a pension scheme and enrolled the right workers they can largely forget about automatic enrolment.  This paper is a wake-up call, especially for larger employers, which suggests that this might be a high-risk strategy.  Many larger employers do already take pensions seriously and go well beyond their statutory minimum duties.  But all employers should be reviewing their automatic enrolment arrangements on a regular basis to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

You can read the full policy paper here.

This website is intended for financial advisers only and shouldn't be relied upon by any other person. If you are not an adviser please visit

The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. The firm is on the Financial Services Register, registration number 117672. It provides life assurance and pensions. Registered in England and Wales number 99064. Registered office: 55 Gracechurch Street, London, EC3V 0RL.