Categories
Acas Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Employment Tribunal Lousha Reynolds Unfair Dismissal

Doubling the Clock: How the 6-month tribunal limitation period changes HR risk management

With major provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 taking effect on 1 October 2026, employment law in England and Wales is undergoing its most significant shift in years. While much attention has rightly focused on trade union access and third-party harassment duties, one fundamental procedural reform demands immediate operational attention: the doubling of the Employment Tribunal limitation period from three months to six months.

For any act, omission, or dismissal occurring on or after 1 October 2026, employees will have six full months, rather than three, to lodge a claim with the Employment Tribunal.

While a six-month window has long been standard for statutory redundancy payments and equal pay claims, extending this timeline across all ‘ordinary’ Employment Rights Act claims permanently changes HR risk management, witness memory, and dispute resolution strategy.


The Practical Impact on Workplace Risk

The historic three-month limitation period served as a swift mechanism for resolving workplace disputes. If an exit went smoothly or an informal grievance quieted down for ninety days, employers could generally draw a line under the matter.

Under the new six-month rule, that safety margin vanishes:

  • The Delay of Claims: An employee who departs quietly or accepts a discretionary exit package without a formal settlement agreement now has a half-year window to reconsider, seek legal advice, and issue proceedings.
  • Fading Witness Recollections: Line managers and witnesses called to testify will be asked to recall conversations, performance reviews, and informal verbal warnings that took place around 18 months prior by the time a full hearing occurs (or a lot longer in some regions due to Tribunal delays).
  • Staff Turnover Challenges: Key witnesses, investigating officers, or HR leads involved in a workplace dispute may leave the business long before a claim is formally served, leaving the employer struggling to piece together a defence.

Overhauling HR Record-Keeping

To mitigate the risk of delayed claims, businesses must move away from informal, undocumented decision-making.

  • Document the “Informal” Steps: Informal performance chats, verbal check-ins, and soft warnings must be logged in writing. A simple follow-up email confirming key discussion points creates an immediate contemporaneous paper trail.
  • Standardise Exit Records: Conduct formal exit interviews for all departing staff, regardless of whether the departure appears amicable. Clear, contemporaneous notes signed off at departure make it significantly harder for a former employee to construct a contradictory narrative months later.
  • Extend File Retention Windows: HR teams should adjust internal document retention schedules. Notes from grievance meetings, disciplinary investigations, and capability processes should be archived securely for a minimum of 12 months post-exit to ensure full coverage during the expanded claim window.

Rethinking Settlement Strategy

The extended limitation period will also impact settlement dynamics:

  • Without Prejudice Discussions: Unrepresented employees will have twice as long to weigh up settlement offers or consult Acas.
  • Settlement Agreements: Discretionary severance packages or exit arrangements should more routinely be formalised via a binding Settlement Agreement with independent legal advice. Relying on an unbinding “handshake deal” now carries six months of unhedged exposure.

3 Steps Employers Must Take Before 1 October 

  • Audit HR Archiving: Ensure line managers submit all local notes, emails, and interview records to central HR immediately upon any employee exit.
  • Train Line Managers: Educate team leaders on the legal weight of contemporaneous notes. Ensure they understand that informal conversations must be recorded accurately.
  • Review Exit Protocols: Update offboarding checklists to ensure formal exit interviews and written acknowledgements are completed consistently.

Need guidance on updating your HR record-keeping protocols or drafting compliant policies or training your managers ahead of the October deadline? Contact the team at Refreshing Law for expert, practical advice.


CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Data Protection Act 2018 Employment Law HR Stress

Guest Blog | Minimising Workplace Coaching Risk: Why HR governance matters more than ever

By Amanda Morgan, UCA Cymru

As coaching becomes deeply embedded in leadership development, wellbeing, and organisational change, UK employers face a silent compliance risk: how do you guarantee quality and safeguard your business in a completely unregulated market?

When commissioning external training or legal counsel, HR professionals demand rigorous procurement checks. Yet, workplace coaching is frequently procured on vibes, historical certifications, or personal recommendations.

Recently shortlisted for the HR in Wales Awards 2026 (Creativity & Innovation), UCA Cymru, the Welsh arm of the Universal Coaching Alliance, presents a new framework for HR leaders and employment law advisers looking to mitigate risk and enforce robust professional assurance.


The Risk Context: High exposure, low regulation

Today, coaches are routinely dropped into high-sensitivity workplace environments to manage:

  • Senior Leadership & Strategy: Handling sensitive commercial data.
  • Wellbeing & Stress Management: Navigating mental health boundaries.
  • Disciplinary & Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs): Interventions that could impact potential Employment Tribunal claims.

Unlike legal or medical professions, coaching lacks centralised statutory regulation. Accreditation pathways vary wildly. Many practitioners operate without ongoing supervision, meaning an employer’s primary assurance is often a historic qualification that may be years out of date.

From an HR governance perspective, this raises critical questions:

The Legal & HR Blindspot: If a coach operating in your business crosses ethical boundaries, mismanages a mental health crisis, or breaches confidentiality, where does the liability sit? How can you prove you fulfilled your corporate Duty of Care?


Moving the Needle: Accountability over subscription fees

UCA Cymru rewrites this dynamic by decoupling professional credibility from financial renewals. Their model argues that credibility must be proven through current, ongoing behaviour and accountability, not a yearly subscription payment.

To maintain accredited status within UCA Cymru, coaches must consistently evidence:

  • Active, documented professional experience.
  • Strict adherence to a defined ethical code.
  • Mandatory, regular supervision.
  • Continuous Professional Development (CPD) mapped to modern workplace risks.

By removing ongoing renewal fees and replacing them with strict, evidence-based compliance checks, the model aligns perfectly with HR procurement standards: credibility is tied to live governance, not past prestige.


Built-In Safeguards: Supervision and CPD

In professional coaching, supervision is the ultimate risk-mitigation tool. It acts as an early-warning system for boundary management, ethical dilemmas, and psychological safety.

While many coaches treat supervision as an optional extra, UCA Cymru embeds it as a non-negotiable expectation. To remove financial barriers to compliance, they offer subsidised group supervision. For employers, this ensures that coaching interventions are monitored by a wider network of peers and legal/ethical frameworks.

Furthermore, their mandatory CPD reflects the immediate realities faced by modern UK HR departments, targeting:

  • Trauma-informed workplace practices.
  • Neurodiversity and ADHD-informed coaching (reinforced via ANUCA, their specialist arm).
  • The ethical and responsible use of AI in professional development.

Language, inclusion, and psychological safety 

For an intervention to be effective, there must be absolute trust. In Wales, and across increasingly diverse UK workforces, language and cultural nuance directly dictate psychological safety.

By actively supporting and standardising bilingual practice (Welsh and English), UCA Cymru doesn’t just meet Welsh Language Standards. It actively reduces miscommunication risks in sensitive HR scenarios.


Checklist: Is your organisation procuring coaching safely? 

Use this checklist to audit your current internal and external coaching pool against modern HR governance standards.

1. Professional Standards & Credibility

  • Is the coach a member of a professional body with an enforceable code of ethics?
  • Does their accreditation require proof of current practice, or are they relying on a historic qualification?
  • Is their professional standing audited through ongoing behaviour rather than just annual fees?

2. Risk Management & Supervision

  • Is the coach engaged in regular, structured professional supervision?
  • Is there a clear protocol for the coach to flag organisational or mental health risks without breaching core confidentiality?
  • Does the coaching framework clearly distinguish between coaching, counselling, and formal HR processes?

3. Diversity, Inclusion & CPD

  • Is the coach trained in neurodiversity-informed practices (e.g., ADHD awareness)?
  • Can the coaching be delivered in the employee’s language of choice, where operational standards require it?
  • Does the coach’s CPD cover modern workplace issues like psychological safety and AI ethics?

Why this matters for HR leaders

Coaching is no longer a peripheral corporate luxury; it is a core operational tool used in high-trust, high-stakes scenarios. Implementing rigorous checks isn’t about micromanagement. It’s about protecting your employees and demonstrating robust corporate governance should an internal grievance or tribunal arise.


Take Action: Secure your coaching governance

Don’t wait for a boundary breach or a failed intervention to audit your coaching standards.

  • Review Your Roster: Benchmark your current coaching providers against the checklist above.
  • Connect with the Experts: To learn more about evidence-based accreditation or to source verified, supervised coaches who understand HR risk, visit UCA Cymru.
  • Download the Framework: PDF Checklist to share with your procurement and leadership teams.

About UCA Cymru

UCA Cymru is the first regional branch of the Universal Coaching Alliance. A supportive and inclusive community for coaches across Wales, we believe coaching is not a solo journey. It is strengthened through relationships, shared learning, and collective experience. If you are looking for connection, encouragement, and a place where you truly belong, you’ll find it here. Join us and invest in your coaching practice and connect to the coaching community in Wales.

0800 998 7904

amanda@universalcoachingalliance.org

Amanda Morgan
UCA Cymru

Universal Coaching Alliance logo.
UCA Cymru Welsh dragon logo.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Health and Safety HR Unfair Dismissal

Guest Blog | UK workplace drug testing

By Abi Carter of Forensic Resources Ltd

How to avoid unfair dismissal pitfalls

Ensuring a safe and productive workplace is a fundamental responsibility for employers, sitting alongside statutory duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

For many organisations, this includes a Drugs and Alcohol Policy supported by workplace testing. When carried out correctly, testing protects employees and reduces risk. However, when done hastily, employers expose themselves to significant legal risk.

At Forensic Resources Ltd (FRL), we frequently assist HR professionals and employment lawyers in navigating this delicate area. The biggest challenge? A misunderstanding of what tests actually prove — and when it is legally safe to act.


Point of Care Testing (POCT): Useful, but presumptive only

Many employers favour Point of Care Tests (POCTs) — quick, onsite screening tests (saliva or urine) that give an immediate indication of substance presence.

The benefits of POCT:

  • Speed: Immediate results.
  • Cost-Effective: Relatively inexpensive.
  • Risk Management: Supports immediate decisions, such as temporarily removing an employee from a safety-critical role.

The critical limitation:

POCT results are presumptive only. This is a position recognised within UK forensic toxicology standards. They cannot confirm:

  1. If the reading is analytically accurate.
  2. If the substance is an illicit drug or a lawful prescription medication.
  3. If “cross-reactivity” has produced a false positive.

Crucial Distinction: At this stage, results should be described as “non-negative,” not “positive.” No employee should ever be dismissed based solely on a POCT result.


Why laboratory confirmation is essential

A non-negative POCT result is only the first step. Employers must send the sample to an accredited forensic toxicology laboratory for confirmatory analysis.

In the UK, laboratories should be accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17025, the recognised standard for testing competence. Confirmatory analysis uses validated techniques like Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) to:

  • Identify the exact drug or metabolite present.
  • Quantify the levels detected.
  • Eliminate false positives.
  • Produce results suitable for disciplinary and tribunal proceedings.

Skipping this stage undermines procedural fairness and leaves the employer legally vulnerable.


The “medication” factor: understanding context

A confirmed finding does not automatically indicate misconduct. Employers must consider if the drug detected is a metabolite of lawful medication.

  • The Codeine Example: Codeine is a lawful medication that metabolises into morphine. A morphine finding may reflect legitimate codeine use rather than illicit opioid consumption.
  • Other Triggers: Antidepressants, ADHD medications, and sleep aids can legitimately influence toxicology results.

If HR teams do not understand the results, they should seek a formal toxicology report or pharmacological opinion to determine whether the findings indicate impairment rather than mere presence.


A fair and defensible process: 7 steps for employers

To minimise risk and ensure a fair investigation under UK employment law, follow this structured approach:

  • Maintain a Clear Policy: Reflect HSE and GOV.UK guidance regarding consent and proportionality.
  • Use Accredited Laboratories: Ensure results are scientifically and legally defensible.
  • Ensure Chain of Custody: Maintain sample integrity from collection to reporting.
  • Wait for Confirmation: Never discipline based on POCT results alone.
  • Seek Expert Interpretation: Understand why a result occurred.
  • Consider Mitigation: Evaluate medical explanations as part of a fair investigation.
  • Document Everything: Build a strong evidence trail for potential tribunals.

Why being “test-ready” matters

Workplace drug testing is time-critical. Drugs remain detectable for a finite period; delays in sample collection can result in the permanent loss of evidence.

Furthermore, delays have cost implications, such as prolonged suspension on full pay. Being pre-registered with a laboratory provider allows for same-day sample collection and fast-track results.


About Forensic Resources Ltd (FRL)

A premier forensic science consultancy firm, FRL specialises in providing expert witness services to legal teams and insurance firms. If you’re implementing or reviewing a drug testing process — or if you have a live case requiring expert input — we’re here to help with clear, scientifically robust guidance every step of the way.

029 2267 6699

info@forensicresources.co.uk

Abi Carter
Forensic Resources Ltd


Key takeaways for HR professionals (FAQs)

Can I dismiss an employee based on an onsite “Instant” test?

No. HSE guidance and UK employment law principles require laboratory confirmation (GC-MS/LC-MS) before drawing conclusions of misconduct.

What is the difference between “Non-Negative” and “Positive”?

A “non-negative” is an unconfirmed screening result. A “positive” is a legally defensible result confirmed by a UKAS-accredited laboratory.

Does a positive result always mean impairment?

Not necessarily. Interpretation by a toxicologist is required to differentiate between illicit use, historical use, and lawful prescription medication.


CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law