Author: Lousha Reynolds

Categories
Dismissal Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Lousha Reynolds Parental Rights Pregnancy

Enhanced dismissal protection for pregnant employees and new parents

What employers need to know

The Westminster Government has unveiled significant plans to strengthen dismissal protections for pregnant employees, new mothers and certain other parents, marking another major development in its wider Make Work Pay employment law reforms.

The changes, announced following a public consultation, will create a higher legal threshold for employers seeking to dismiss employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and for the 6 months following a return from maternity leave.

Why are the rules changing?

Responses to the Government’s consultation and wider evidence has highlighted that whilst redundancy protections can provide safeguards in certain circumstances, the protection for pregnant women and those returning from maternity leave is limited in scope. As a result, it was noted that many women continue to experience vulnerability during pregnancy, maternity leave and in the period following their return to work.

Following consultation with employers, trade unions, legal professionals and employees, the Government has decided to introduce a stronger legal framework designed to ensure dismissal is considered only after reasonable alternatives have been explored, therefore strengthening the protection for women during pregnancy, maternity and for 6 months following a return to work.

A new legal test for dismissal

The change is a significant one as it replaces the current and well-established unfair dismissal test during the protected period.

At present, when considering the fairness of the dismissal, Employment Tribunals assess whether an employer’s actions fell within the “band of reasonable responses” available to a reasonable employer.

Under the new framework, the employer will still have to show that the dismissal is for one of the potentially fair reasons (conduct, capability, statutory restriction, redundancy or some other substantial reason) but instead of simply asking whether the employer has acted reasonably, dismissals during the protected period will instead be assessed using a proportionality test, with the Tribunal determining whether the decision to dismiss was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (which is the test used in relation to indirect discrimination).

This means employers will need to:

  • Identify the legitimate business objective that is being furthered by the dismissal
  • Demonstrate that dismissal was a proportionate way of achieving that objective
  • Show that less severe alternatives were not reasonably available

Examples of alternatives may include:

  • Temporary changes to a role
  • Additional support or training
  • Redeployment opportunities
  • Other measures that could enable the employee to remain in work

This is a much higher threshold than you would normally find in unfair dismissal, therefore increasing the burden on the employer in such dismissals.

When will protection begin and how long will it last?

The Government has confirmed that enhanced dismissal protection will become a day one employment right, meaning there will be no qualifying service requirement.

Protection will begin once an employee informs their employer that they are pregnant and will apply from that date, throughout the pregnancy, during the period of maternity leave and for 6 months after the maternity leave ends.

Where an employee is not entitled to maternity leave, protection will continue for two weeks following the end of the pregnancy.

Protections extended to other forms of family related leave

Importantly, the Government has decided that similar protections should apply to other forms of family-related leave.

Adoption leave

Employees taking adoption leave will benefit from protection during their leave and for six months following the end of the adoption leave.

Enhanced dismissal protections will also extend to:

  • Shared Parental Leave
  • Neonatal Care Leave
  • Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave

Protections will again apply during the period of leave and for 6 months following the end of the leave where at least six continuous weeks of leave is taken.

What does this mean for employers?

The reforms do not create a blanket ban on dismissals.

Employers will still be able to dismiss employees where there is a legitimate reason and dismissal is proportionate in the circumstances. However, the expectation is that employers will take meaningful steps to consider alternatives before reaching that point.

This means organisations should be prepared to demonstrate:

  • Clear business justification
  • Thorough consultation
  • Consideration of alternative options
  • Robust documentation of decision-making processes

For many employers, manager training will also become increasingly important to ensure decisions are legally defensible, consistently applied, and well documented.

When does the change take effect?

On 22 October 2026, the Government updated its implementation timetable and confirmed that the enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women, new mothers and other parents taking family related leave will take effect in October 2027.

How Refreshing Law can help

The proposed reforms represent a significant shift in employment law and place greater emphasis on demonstrating fairness, proportionality and meaningful consideration of alternatives to dismissal.

Refreshing Law can help employers review policies, assess risk, train managers, and prepare for the enhanced protections before they come into force, ensuring compliance while supporting fair and effective workplace practices.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Dismissal Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Lousha Reynolds Recruitment Redundancy

Fire & Rehire: Government clarifies new restrictions on contract changes

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

The UK Government has provided further detail on how its upcoming fire and rehire reforms will operate, giving employers greater clarity on which contractual changes will be subject to the strongest legal protections.

Alongside confirming the treatment of expenses, benefits and shift patterns, the Government has also announced that the new fire and rehire provisions under the Employment Rights Act 2025 will now come into force in March 2027, rather than in January 2027 as expected.

What are the new fire and rehire rules?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces significant restrictions on the use of dismissal and re-engagement, commonly known as “fire and rehire”.

Under the new framework, it will be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee in order to impose certain protected contractual changes, known as restricted variations, unless a very limited exemption applies for employers facing serious financial difficulties. The restricted variations include:

  • reductions to pay,
  • changes to total hours,
  • reductions to leave entitlements,
  • changes to pensions,
  • changes to specified shift pattens.

It will also be automatically unfair to replace an employee with a non-employee doing substantially the same role. There will also be additional procedural hurdles to jump through for a dismissal for making an unrestricted variation to be held to be fair.

The Government is now consulting on an updated Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-engagement, which will help employers understand their responsibilities when seeking to make contractual changes. This will run until 17 December 2026.

Response to Closed Consultation

On 22 October 2026, the government published its response to the consultation on how expenses, benefits in kind, and shift patterns should be treated under the new “fire and rehire” regime.

Expenses and benefits

The recently published consultation response has confirmed that most expenses and benefits in kind will not be a restricted variation, as the Government recognised that allowing employers to make some adjustments, where necessary and subject to appropriate consultation, may help to avoid redundancies and support long-term business viability. However, there are three important exceptions, which will fall within the restricted variation rules:

  • Travel expenses, including mileage allowances.
  • Accommodation expenses incurred through work.
  • Long-term accommodation provided as a benefit in kind.

Where these entitlements form part of an employee’s contract, dismissal and re-engagement will be automatically unfair.

Share schemes excluded

The Government has also confirmed that employee share schemes will sit outside the restricted variation framework. This means organisations will retain more flexibility when making changes to share-based reward arrangements.

Shift pattern changes face greater protection

The Government has also clarified which shift pattern changes will be treated as restricted variations. A protected change will arise where an employee is required to:

  • Move from day work to night work, or vice versa.
  • Move from weekday working to weekend working, or vice versa.

For these purposes, night work will be defined as work carried out between 11pm and 6am. The rationale is that these changes can have a significant impact on employees’ caring responsibilities, family commitments and overall wellbeing.

By contrast, smaller changes, such as moving a shift by a few hours without crossing day/night or weekday/weekend boundaries, and changes to availability windows (where the contract sets out a range of hours within which the employee may be scheduled to work) will not be restricted variations.

Contractual status matters

Importantly, changes will only be a restricted variation where the entitlement is contractual.

If a benefit is provided through a non-contractual policy, or where a valid contractual variation clause allows changes, employers may still be able to amend arrangements without triggering the restricted variation provisions.

For many employers, this highlights the importance of reviewing contracts, policies and benefit documentation before the new rules take effect.

Fair process will remain essential, even when the change is not automatically restricted

If an employee is dismissed and re-engaged to impose a contractual change which is not a restricted variation, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair. However, in addition to judging fairness by the usual unfair dismissal tests, the Act requires tribunals to take account of the reason for the variation, any individual or collective consultation and anything that the employee was offered in return for the change.

The revised Code of Practice will also still apply (even to non-restricted changes), and it is expected to place a greater emphasis on meaningful consultation and employee engagement before changes are implemented.

Employers should also note that failure to follow the Code could lead to compensation awards being increased by up to 25%.

A delayed timeline, but not more time to ignore it

The Government has confirmed that the reforms will now take effect in March 2027, rather than January 2027 as previously anticipated.

Interestingly, the existing Code of Practice is expected to be withdrawn in March 2027, while the replacement Code is not expected to come into force until Summer 2027. This could create a temporary gap in formal guidance, making preparation even more important.

Regulations specifying the restricted variations (including changes to shift patterns) are expected to be published during Autumn 2026, so we will have these prior to the changes taking effect in March.

What should employers be doing now?

Although implementation is still some months away, employers should use this period to prepare by:

  • Considering whether you need to make any changes before the new regime comes into force. This should still be done with caution, but it is likely to be easier now than in March 2027, so it is still worth doing it sooner rather than later.
  • Reviewing employment contracts and variation clauses. Variation clauses are heavily restricted by case law, but it is still advisable to ensure that flexibility clauses are drafted as widely and effectively as possible.
  • Auditing benefits and expenses that have contractual status.
  • Assessing shift pattern provisions and scheduling arrangements.
  • Strengthening consultation processes and focusing on other methods to effect change.
  • Incentivising employees will become more important.
  • Training HR teams and managers on the incoming changes.

How Refreshing Law can help

While the latest announcements provide welcome clarity, they also increase the importance of robust contracts, careful planning, and meaningful employee consultation.

Refreshing Law can help employers review their existing arrangements, assess areas of risk, and prepare for the new regime well before the March 2027 implementation date.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Employment Law Equality Act 2010 HR Lousha Reynolds Reasonable Adjustments

Personal Liability for Reasonable Adjustments: A wake-up call for managers and employers

The outside of the new London Tribunals Centre

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others has sent a clear message to employers, HR professionals and managers: liability for disability discrimination may not stop at the organisation’s door. Individuals involved in decisions relating to reasonable adjustments can face personal liability under the Equality Act 2010.

While the duty to make reasonable adjustments formally rests with the employer, the EAT has reaffirmed that organisations can only act through the people who make and implement decisions on their behalf. As a result, managers and decision-makers who play a role in rejecting, delaying or mishandling adjustment requests may find themselves named personally in Employment Tribunal proceedings.

The Facts of Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd

The claimant, Ms Merriman, worked as a tutor through an agency arrangement. After developing disabilities that affected her ability to attend tutoring sessions in person, she requested a number of workplace adjustments, including the option to deliver sessions remotely. When those adjustments were not implemented, she brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 against both the agency and several individual employees involved in the decision-making process.

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal allowed the claim against the agency to proceed but struck out the claims against the individual respondents, concluding that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was owed only by the employer.

The EAT disagreed.

Why the EAT Allowed the Appeal

The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in law by striking out the claims against the individual respondents. Although the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer, a company can only act through its employees and agents. Where an individual’s actions contribute to a breach of that duty, personal liability may also arise under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010.

In reaching its conclusion, the EAT relied heavily on the earlier decision in Baldwin v Cleves School, which established that where the conditions for individual liability under section 110 are met, Employment Tribunals do not have a discretion to excuse the individual simply because the employer is also liable.

The EAT therefore ordered that the individual respondents be rejoined to the proceedings for further case management.

The Relationship Between Sections 109 and 110 Equality Act 2010

The decision highlights the interaction between two important provisions of the Equality Act 2010:

Section 109: Employer Liability

Section 109 makes employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by employees in the course of their employment.

Section 110: Individual Liability

Section 110 provides that employees and agents may themselves be liable where they carry out discriminatory acts which render the employer liable under section 109.

The significance of both Baldwin and Merriman is that Tribunals cannot simply choose not to impose liability on individuals when the statutory conditions are satisfied. If an employee’s act contributes to unlawful discrimination, personal liability may follow.

What Does This Mean for Managers?

For many managers, reasonable adjustment requests are viewed primarily as an HR issue. These cases demonstrate that such an approach can be risky.

Managers are often the individuals who:

  • Receive adjustment requests.
  • Assess practical options.
  • Make recommendations.
  • Decide whether adjustments will be implemented.
  • Communicate decisions to employees.

Where those decisions result in a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the individuals involved may now face increased scrutiny and potential personal exposure in Tribunal claims.

Being named as a respondent can be stressful, time-consuming and professionally damaging, even where a claim is ultimately unsuccessful.

Practical Steps Employers Should Take

The decision serves as an important reminder that disability-related workplace issues should be handled carefully and consistently. Employers should consider:

Providing Regular Training

Managers should receive up-to-date training on disability discrimination law, including when the duty to make reasonable adjustments arises and the potential for personal liability.

Escalating Requests Promptly

Adjustment requests should be referred to HR or specialist advisers at an early stage to ensure appropriate consideration.

Keeping Clear Records

Decision-makers should document requests, consultations, alternatives considered and the reasons for any decisions taken.

Focusing on Collaboration

Reasonable adjustment requests are rarely straightforward. A collaborative dialogue with the employee can often help identify practical solutions and demonstrate that the employer has engaged meaningfully with its obligations.

Key Takeaway

The EAT’s decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others reinforces the increasingly broad reach of personal liability under the Equality Act 2010. While the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments remains an employer obligation, managers and employees involved in relevant decisions cannot assume they are insulated from legal risk.

For employers, the message is clear: disability adjustment requests require careful handling, robust training and well-documented decision-making. For managers, the case is a timely reminder that employment law responsibilities can carry personal consequences as well as corporate ones.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Acas Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Part-Time Working

Questions we’ve received from clients this month

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

In this month’s roundup, our team addresses two key operational risks facing HR leaders: maintaining admissibility privilege under section 111A during settlement discussions, and navigating the evolving timeline for zero-hours contract reforms.

1. How can we ensure a protected conversation under section 111A remains protected?

Section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides useful protection, but it is not absolute. To maximise the likelihood that a conversation remains inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings, employers should:

  • Keep the discussion focused on settlement. Avoid using the meeting as an opportunity to criticise the employee’s performance or conduct in detail.
  • Avoid improper behaviour. Protection can be lost where there is undue pressure or intimidation. For example, telling an employee they will be dismissed if they do not accept the offer is likely to jeopardise the protection. Following a pre-prepared script is advisable as it will not only help you retain focus, but you can disclose the script as evidence to counter any challenge about the content of the meeting, if required.
  • Give employees sufficient time to consider the offer. The Acas Code recommends allowing at least 10 calendar days to consider a written settlement agreement unless the parties agree otherwise.
  • Remember the limits of section 111A. The protection applies only to ordinary unfair dismissal claims. It does not prevent discussions being relied upon in claims such as discrimination, whistleblowing, automatic unfair dismissal or breach of contract.
  • Consider relying on “without prejudice” as well. Where there is already an existing dispute, the without prejudice rule may provide broader protection than section 111A. In some cases, employers may benefit from both protections applying simultaneously, so where there is an existing dispute, use both in your correspondence to broaden the scope of protection.

2. Are zero-hours contracts still being banned because of the Employment Rights Act 2025 and when will the changes be implemented?

Despite the headlines, the Employment Rights Act does not outlaw zero-hours contracts. Instead, it introduces a package of rights designed to end one-sided flexibility and to give workers greater certainty.

That said, the proposed regime is complex and the new duty to offer a qualifying employee a contract that reflects the hours regularly worked over a reference period means that the use of zero-hours contracts will likely reduce.

Whilst the government roadmap still indicates that the reforms related to zero-hours/low-hours workers will take effect at some point in 2027, it is clear that the detail of how this regime will work in practice remains unresolved.

The government has opened a consultation on the reforms which closes on 25 August 2026, and it is clear from the proposals within the consultation that the planned changes could be watered down. There are also some significant gaps, meaning a further consultation may still be required after this one closes, meaning that timelines for implementation may be pushed back.

As the detail of this complex new regime is still uncertain, there isn’t a need to make any changes at this time. Instead, have it on your radar, and we will keep you updated to ensure you can adequately prepare.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Communication Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Lousha Reynolds Offer of Employment

What does the reduction of the qualifying period mean for fixed-term contracts?

Typewriter with the word 'Contract' typed on a piece of paper

When employers think about the Employment Rights Act 2025, much of the attention has understandably focused on the reduction in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and the proposed removal of the statutory cap on compensation.

However, one area that has received far less attention is the impact these changes are likely to have on fixed-term contracts.

For many organisations, fixed-term contracts have traditionally provided a relatively low-risk way of engaging employees for projects, maternity or other family leave cover or seasonal demand. From January 2027, however, employers will need to rethink their approach.

Why does the change matter?

At present, an employee whose fixed-term contract expires is treated in law as having been dismissed. This is the case even if the employee knew that their employment was going to be for a fixed, temporary period. However, because employees currently need two years’ service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the majority of fixed-term contracts end before that threshold is reached, meaning that relatively few fixed-term employees had sufficient service to challenge the dismissal.

The reduction of the qualifying period to six months changes that position dramatically.

From 1 January 2027, a far greater proportion of employees on fixed-term contracts will qualify for unfair dismissal protection before their contract comes to an end. Combined with the proposed removal of the cap on compensatory awards, employers who simply allow contracts to expire without careful planning could face a much greater litigation risk than they do today.

In practical terms, what does this mean?

It means that where the fixed-term employee has 6 months’ service, employers can no longer bring a fixed-term contract to an end by serving notice, as many employers have been doing whilst the qualifying period has been 2 years (as there was no risk of an unfair dismissal claim).

In the same way as in any dismissal where the employee has requisite service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, the employer will need to establish:

  • the principal reason for the dismissal;
  • that the reason falls within one of the potentially fair statutory categories (capability, conduct, redundancy, illegality or some other substantial reason (SOSR); and
  • that dismissal was reasonable, including that an appropriate procedure was followed.

The principal reason for the dismissal will often be related to the fixed-term contract coming to an end, for example because funding has ended, a project has completed or in cases where a contract is used to cover maternity or other family leave, where the parent returns to work.

In most cases, it will be appropriate for the employer to rely on either some other substantial reason or redundancy as the fair reason for the dismissal, but the correct reason will depend on why the fixed-term contract was created and why the employee’s services are no longer required.

Fair reasons for dismissal

Maternity/family leave cover

Most employers are familiar with the fact that employees returning from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave have statutory rights to return to work. What is less widely appreciated is that the law also contains specific provisions dealing with employees who are recruited purely to provide temporary cover during that period of leave.

Section 106 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 recognises that, in these circumstances, an employer may need to bring the replacement employee’s employment to an end when the substantive postholder returns. Provided certain conditions are met, that dismissal will be treated as having a fair reason, as required in unfair dismissal law.

To rely on this provision, employers must ensure that, at the point of recruitment, the temporary employee is informed in writing that their employment will end when the employee they are covering returns from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave and that the dismissal is taking place to give work to the returning employee.

Generally, employers have not been doing this- they haven’t needed to because the qualifying period for unfair dismissal has been longer than the period of maternity/family leave cover and the length of the fixed-term contract, but as explained above, that will all change when the qualifying period reduces.

Importantly, these statutory provisions do not remove the need to follow a fair process. They establish only a potentially fair reason for dismissal. As with any dismissal, the employer must still act reasonably in all the circumstances. This is likely to include considering whether there are any suitable alternative vacancies available and light touch consultation with the employee about ways to avoid the dismissal before any decision is made.

So in summary, when recruiting maternity or other parental leave cover, ensure the temporary nature of the role is clearly explained from the outset, confirm this in writing and remember that, even where section 106 applies, a fair process remains essential.

Redundancy

Dismissing a fixed-term employee by reason of redundancy will constitute a fair reason for dismissal where the fixed-term employee was engaged to undertake work that has now ceased or reduced, for example where a particular project has been completed, seasonal demand has reduced, or external funding for the role has ended.

However, employers should not assume that the fixed-term employee can automatically be selected for redundancy simply because their contract is due to expire. An employer will still be required to show that they have followed a fair selection process, meaning that where permanent and fixed-term employees undertake the same or similar work, the employer may need to consider whether they should be included within the same selection pool and scored against a set of objective criteria.

As a fair process also involves warning the employee of the risk of redundancy as early as possible, it is important to make clear at the start of the fixed-term contract that the work to be done is for a limited period, the contract is due to end when the work is done and that there is no guarantee of another role when it ends.

Some other substantial reason (SOSR dismissal)

A dismissal for some other substantial reason is a catch-all dismissal, but may be particularly helpful for ending fixed-term contracts fairly. Case law makes clear that if the contract was for a specific and genuine purpose, which has now come to an end, an employer may be able to fairly rely on an SOSR dismissal.

The employer would need to show that the reason was substantial and capable of justifying the dismissal of an employee holding that particular role.

There will still need to be a fair procedure followed, and we would recommend at least one meeting, as well as an opportunity to apply for alternative roles.

The Countdown to 2027

As always, the key to staying ahead of the changes is preparation.

For that reason and ahead of the changes, we would recommend that you:

  1. Consider fixed-term contracts that are shorter than 6 months in duration, as there will be no impact as a result of the change to the qualifying period. However, in many roles, the disruption to the business will outweigh the benefit of avoiding the legal risk.
  2. Review your use of fixed-term contracts and update documentation, making expressly clear within offer letters and contracts the intended purpose, duration and the circumstances in which the fixed-term contract will come to an end.
  3. Consider your current fixed-term contracts. Are there any that you wish to bring to an end before the change in the law on 1 January 2027?
  4. For those fixed-term contracts that will expire on or after 1 January 2027, ensure that you have identified the process that you will follow in plenty of time before the expiry date.
  5. Document expiry dates for fixed-term contracts and consider implementing an approvals process for renewals and extensions in an attempt to reduce the risk.
  6. Raise awareness so managers are aware of the changes and the implications.

We appreciate that this is a complex area to navigate, so please do get in touch if you need any further 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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Communication Confidentiality Data Protection Act 2018 Disciplinary Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 GDPR Grievance Lousha Reynolds

AI in Disciplinary & Grievance Processes: A growing challenge for employers

An iPhone with ChatGPT's LLM open on the screen, asking the question "What can I help with?"

Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become part of everyday working life. Whether employees are using ChatGPT to draft emails, employers are introducing AI-powered workplace tools, or managers are relying on AI to improve productivity, its influence on the employment relationship is growing.

One area where this is becoming increasingly apparent is within disciplinary and grievance processes.

It is now common to receive grievances, disciplinary responses and appeal letters that have clearly been generated, or heavily assisted, by AI. Whilst AI can undoubtedly help employees articulate their concerns more clearly, it also presents several practical and legal challenges for employers.

The reality is that AI-generated submissions are here to stay. The key question for HR professionals and business owners is not whether employees should use AI, but how organisations should respond effectively when they do.

The challenges

Length over clarity

One of the most obvious features of AI-generated grievances is their length.

Rather than setting out the key issues succinctly, AI often produces documents that are repetitive, overly detailed and lacking a clear structure. What could have been a straightforward complaint quickly becomes several pages of information, making it much harder (and more time-consuming!) to identify the real issues that require investigation.

Legal language without accuracy

AI also tends to produce documents that sound highly legalistic.

Instead of simply explaining the facts, grievances often contain references to statutory provisions, legal terminology and Employment Tribunal case law. Unfortunately, public AI tools are well known for occasionally inventing cases or misapplying genuine legal authorities. This can make documents appear more persuasive than they actually are and distract attention from the factual issues that genuinely need to be addressed.

Escalated allegations

AI is designed to generate persuasive writing and, in doing so, can unintentionally exaggerate concerns.

A workplace disagreement can suddenly be described using terminology such as “harassment”, “victimisation”, or “systemic discrimination” where the employee may simply be trying to explain that relationships have broken down. Whilst every allegation must be considered, employers should concentrate on establishing the facts rather than becoming distracted by dramatic or emotive language.

Unrealistic expectations

Anyone who has used AI will probably have noticed that it tends to reinforce the user’s position.

If an employee asks whether their grievance is likely to succeed or whether they have a strong tribunal claim, AI frequently provides an optimistic assessment. This can create unrealistic expectations before the employer has even started investigating the issues, making it more difficult to manage the process and achieve an acceptable outcome.

Data protection risks

The biggest concern is one that often goes unnoticed.

Employees using public AI platforms may upload confidential company information or personal data relating to colleagues to obtain assistance with drafting their grievance or disciplinary response. That creates obvious confidentiality and data protection risks which employers should not overlook (see UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018).

5 top tips for dealing with AI-generated grievances and disciplinary responses

  1. Focus on prevention

Formal grievances are expensive, time-consuming and often damage working relationships.

The best approach is to encourage informal resolution wherever appropriate. Grievance policies should actively signpost employees towards discussing concerns informally with their manager/an appropriate manager or HR before commencing formal procedures.

Managers should also be trained and empowered to deal with workplace concerns at an early stage rather than feeling that every issue automatically requires a formal process.

  1. Don’t respond line by line

When faced with a lengthy AI-generated grievance or disciplinary response, it is tempting to answer every single point in writing. In practice, this often creates more work than it solves.

Detailed written responses can legitimise irrelevant arguments and often result in another equally lengthy AI-generated reply. Instead, focus on identifying the central issues that require investigation and ensure those are addressed thoroughly.

  1. Prioritise conversations over correspondence

One of the most effective ways to deal with AI-generated documents is to talk to the employee.

Whether in person or remotely, asking employees to explain their concerns in their own words often cuts through pages of unnecessary text and helps identify what the dispute is really about.

If their explanation differs from the written grievance or disciplinary response, clarify the position during the meeting by referring back to the document. This ensures that important issues are not missed whilst avoiding arguments later that particular points were ignored.

The same principle applies throughout the process. Where clarification is needed, a short conversation is often far more productive than an email exchange that generates increasingly lengthy AI-assisted responses.

  1. Protect confidential information

Employers should now consider implementing a clear AI policy if they have not already done so.

The policy should explain when AI can be used, prohibit employees from uploading confidential company information or colleagues’ personal data into public AI platforms, and remind employees that they remain responsible for the accuracy of any information submitted on their behalf.

It is also sensible to include a paragraph within disciplinary and grievance procedures (and in fact any procedures related to a formal process) that cover the use of AI. This could then be drawn to their attention during the process if the use of AI is clear.

  1. Train your managers

Finally, managers should understand both the benefits and the limitations of AI. This should include guidance on recognising AI-generated documents, understanding that AI may misstate legal principles or cite inaccurate case law, and focusing investigations on establishing the underlying facts rather than becoming overwhelmed by lengthy legalistic submissions. This could be built into manager training, whether as a stand-alone or as part of training on disciplinaries and grievances.

Looking ahead 

Although AI and LLMs (Large Language Models) are currently having the biggest impact on disciplinary and grievance procedures, this is only the beginning.

We are already seeing AI-assisted correspondence in flexible working requests, redundancy consultations, capability processes, settlement negotiations and in ET claims. As AI becomes embedded within everyday working life, employers will need to adapt their processes accordingly.

The key is not to be intimidated by AI-generated correspondence. Focus on the facts, encourage conversations rather than lengthy written exchanges, ensure managers are appropriately trained and put clear boundaries in place around the safe use of AI.

Those organisations that adapt now will be best placed to deal with the opportunities, and the challenges, that AI continues to bring to the workplace.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Lousha Reynolds Pay

Navigating the Backdated Statutory Mileage Rate Increase: An employer’s action plan

Aerial shot of a car driving on an empty main road between open fields in Bedfordshire, England.

For the first time in fifteen years, employers and employees alike are seeing a substantial change to the statutory mileage allowance rules. On 21 May 2026, the government issued a written ministerial statement confirming a newly announced increase in the statutory mileage allowances for cars and vans. Crucially, this change applies to the 2026-27 tax year and has been backdated to 6 April 2026. HMRC has already updated paragraph EIM31240 of its Employment Income Manual to reflect the new structure, and the government has confirmed it will legislate retrospectively for this change at the earliest opportunity.

This unexpected mid-quarter update introduces a layer of retrospective compliance for HR and payroll teams, who must now assess how they manage expenses paid out over the last two months.

The new mileage allowance rates at a glance

The revised Approved Mileage Allowance Payments (AMAPs) framework breaks down as follows for cars and vans:

Vehicle TypeBusiness MilesNew Rate (From 6 April 2026)Change From Previous Rate
Cars and VansFirst 10,00055p a mile25p a mile
Cars and VansAdditional25p a mileRemaining unchanged

Key considerations for employers and payroll

With the increases backdated to the start of April, your immediate focus should shift to assessing your current expense policies and payroll reporting. Employers should accordingly consider increasing the amount that they reimburse their employees to reflect the revised rates. This includes making a strategic decision on whether to uplift payments already made for April and May 2026 to reflect the backdated increase.

If your organisation has historically aligned its mileage reimbursement with the maximum statutory threshold, you face two distinct operational scenarios depending on your recent practice:

  • Employers reimbursing at the old 45p rate: If you have been paying the previous maximum of 45p during April and May, you may want to issue top-up payments of 10p per mile for those journeys. Employees who have been or will be reimbursed less than the revised 55p rate may wish to consider claiming tax relief for the difference directly from HMRC.
  • Employers reimbursing above the old 45p rate: If your business chose to reimburse staff above the previous 45p limit, you would have previously treated the excess as taxable income. Because the tax-free threshold has retroactively jumped to 55p, you may need to revise your payroll calculations for April and May 2026 to correct any overpaid tax and National Insurance contributions.

Wider Implications: Self-employed and landlords

The ripple effect of this announcement extends beyond standard employment contracts. HMRC simultaneously updated paragraph BIM75005 of its Business Income Manual and paragraph PIM2220 of its Property Income Manual on 21 May 2026. These updates reflect the identical 55p revised mileage rate for the 2026-27 tax year onwards for self-employed traders and unincorporated landlords claiming fixed rate deductions for motoring expenses. This brings welcome parity to the wider business community, ensuring that sole traders and landlords can also benefit from heightened fixed-rate relief on their business journeys.

Reviewing your expense policies today will ensure you stay ahead of the legislative curve. If you need support updating your employment contracts, refreshing your staff expense policies, or navigating the complexities of retrospective payroll adjustments, please reach out to the team at Refreshing Law.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Compensation Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Pay

Deadline Alert: The 1st of May Real Living Wage implementation

View of the City of London at sunset

For the 15,000+ UK businesses that have voluntarily committed to the Real Living Wage, a significant date is approaching. While the government’s statutory National Living Wage typically grabs the headlines in April, accredited Living Wage employers have until May 1, 2026, to finalise their annual rate increases.

If you are an accredited employer, here is everything you need to know about the upcoming deadline and the new rates.

The new 2026 rates

The Living Wage Foundation announced the rates in late 2025, providing a six-month window for businesses to adjust their payroll. Unlike the government minimum, these rates are independently calculated based on what people actually need to afford the basket of goods required for a decent standard of living.

Region New Hourly Rate (2026) Annual Increase 
UK-wide (Standard) £13.45 +£0.85 (6.7%) 
London £14.80 +£0.95 (6.9%) 

Why the difference?

The London Living Wage is higher to reflect the significantly steeper costs of housing, childcare, and transport in the capital. While the government’s National Living Wage (£12.71 as of April 2026) is a flat rate across the country, the Real Living Wage recognises that a pound doesn’t go as far in Brixton as it might in Blackpool.

What employers need to do by the 1st of May

If you are an accredited Living Wage Employer, the clock is ticking. Here are your primary responsibilities before the deadline:

  • Update your payroll: Ensure all staff aged 18 and over are moved to the new rates.
  • Audit third-party contracts: A core part of accreditation is ensuring that regularly contracted staff (such as cleaners, security, or caterers) also receive the new rates.
  • Communication: You are required to inform your employees of the pay increase. Beyond compliance, this is a great moment to reinforce your commitment to being a fair-pay employer.
  • Check for pay compression: With the floor rising, look at the salaries of supervisors or those just above the Living Wage to ensure there is still a meaningful gap in pay for their extra responsibility.

The business case for the Real Wage

It’s easy to view the 1st of May as just another compliance hurdle, but the benefits of staying accredited often outweigh the costs:

  • Retention: 75% of Living Wage employers report increased motivation and retention rates.
  • Reputation: Displaying the Living Wage badge helps you stand out to ethical consumers and top-tier talent.
  • Productivity: Workers who aren’t stressed about their next electricity bill are more engaged and productive during their shifts.

Note: The Real Living Wage is voluntary. If you haven’t signed up yet but want to join the movement, you can apply for accreditation via the Living Wage Foundation.

Is your business ready for the transition?

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds

The advice we’ve been asked for in April

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

Explore the key employment law questions facing UK businesses in April 2026. From Statutory Sick Pay reforms to phased employee returns under the Employment Rights Act, our experts break down the latest ERA changes and their immediate impact on your workforce.

During a month of unprecedented change, these were the most frequently asked questions from our clients:

1.  We’ve already noticed an increase in absence levels since the changes to the SSP regime. Is there anything we can do to mitigate against the impact of this change?

Unfortunately, we don’t have a magic wand that’s going to help overnight, particularly for those clients who have reported a sharp increase in absence this month. SSP will still be payable and there’s inevitably the additional financial pressure this brings as well as the operational disruption caused by higher absence levels.

What we do recommend is taking steps to manage the absence, such as holding return to work interviews and documenting them to help spot any patterns at an early stage and in the hope that having to discuss the absence with a line manager or business owner may serve as a deterrent for those absences that aren’t genuine. We also strongly recommend introducing an absence policy which allows you to issue warnings (first, final and dismissal) when absence hits certain trigger points.

Please note that disability and pregnancy related absences should be excluded. If you’d like help drafting or implementing such a policy, don’t hesitate to get in touch.

2.  What happens when an employee is on a phased return?

It is common for an employee to return to work on a phased basis after a period of sickness absence. This commonly involves working reduced hours or a reduced number of days, to allow for a gradual re-integration. Under the old regime, if employees returned on a phased basis, (e.g. Mon, Wed, Fri) SSP was not triggered due to the waiting days (e.g. it was not triggered for the Tues as there was not 3 waiting days prior).

However, with the current SSP regime and the removal of the waiting days, there will be a requirement to pay SSP during such a phased return, for example on the Tuesday and the Thursday in the above example. The position does differ where the employee returns for their full number of days but with reduced hours on those days. A period of incapacity for work under the SSP regime is a whole day so there is no requirement to pay SSP if the employee is usually full time and returns for 4 hours every day, as there are no full days of absence to trigger the SSP requirement.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Parental Rights Pregnancy Sick Pay

April ERA Recap: Navigating the new employment reality

Office windows at night

As we reach the end of April 2026, the UK’s employment landscape has undergone its most seismic shift in a generation. The “wait and see” period is officially over, with vast swathes of the Employment Rights Act 2025 now active. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed for every employer and employee in the country.

At Refreshing Law, we’ve spent the past month helping businesses transition through these updates. Here’s a summary of the new business reality, the challenges we’re seeing on the ground, and what you need to prepare for next.

The April recap

The start of this month wasn’t just a new tax year; it saw the activation of several transformative employment rights. 

1. The end of the SSP waiting period 

The three-day waiting period for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is now a thing of the past. As of 6 April, SSP is payable from Day 1 of illness. Low paid workers now also qualify for SSP for the first time as the lower earnings limit which blocked anyone earning less than £125 a week from getting SSP has now been removed.

The Impact: This was voted by 43% of employers as the reform they felt would have the biggest impact and many are already reporting that their absence rates have increased, particularly for our clients whose staff didn’t previously qualify for SSP due to the lower earnings limit. We’re already seeing businesses adjusting their cash flow and absence tracking to manage the immediate cost of short-term sickness, as well as implementing absence management policies that enable them to issue warnings when non disability or pregnancy related absences hit certain triggers.

2. The launch of the Fair Work Agency (FWA) 

The FWA is now operational. It has consolidated the powers of HMRC’s Minimum Wage team, the GLAA and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate into a single, unified enforcement body. 

The Impact: The FWA is a regulator with increased powers to proactively audit your business and initiate investigations. It can inspect workplaces, demand records and initiate employment tribunal complaints on behalf of workers. It also has the power to impose fines to those who underpay holiday, SSP or who do not pay national minimum wage. This can include penalties of up to 200%. Many SMEs are currently struggling with the new statutory duty to maintain six years of detailed leave records. Failure to produce these can now lead to criminal liability. 

3. Family friendly “Day 1” rights are the new standard

We’ve moved into an era of immediate protection. Paternity Leave and Unpaid Parental Leave are now a legally protected right from the first date of employment. Previously employees had to have 26 weeks’ service to qualify for paternity and one years’ service to qualify for parental leave.

4. Collective consultation

Additionally, the maximum protective award for failing to consult in collective redundancies (where you propose to make more than 20 employees redundant at one establishment in a 90-day period) has doubled from 90 days to 180 days’ pay.

5. Sexual harassment whistleblowing 

The final April change to flag is that workers who disclose sexual harassment are now entitled to whistleblower protection. To qualify, they must reasonably believe the disclosure is in the public interest. Whilst legally, sexual harassment was likely to constitute a protected disclosure even prior to this change, there has been so much talk about the ERA changes that it will inevitably lead to a greater awareness of sexual harassment whistleblowing as a claim and we may therefore see an uptick in ET complaints in this area as a result.

What’s next? The countdown to 2027

While we’ve cleared the April 2026 hurdle, the ERA roadmap has another tranche of changes in October 2026 and then two major milestones looming that will dwarf recent changes.

1. The end of the qualifying period

On 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will drop from two years to just six months. Employers must ensure that their recruitment and probation processes are incredibly robust, as the window to get it right is narrowing significantly.

2. The removal of the compensation cap

We’re currently in the final period of capped compensatory awards (now set at £123,543). On 1 January 2027, the cap will be removed entirely.

Why this matters: The UK is moving from a predictable regime to an uncapped one, diverging from European neighbours like Ireland and France. This will make high-earner litigation far more common and settlement negotiations much more complex.

Our legal perspective

The theme for the remainder of 2026 is preparation and procedural rigour. With the FWA looking back over the last six years and the removal of the compensation cap on the horizon, poor record-keeping is no longer an option.

Is your business protected? If you haven’t yet audited your payroll systems, updated your contracts to ensure that you are adequately protected or updated your staff handbooks/policies to reflect the Day 1 rights that came into force this month, now is the time.

Contact Refreshing Law today for a compliance review to ensure your business is ready for next year.

For more information about the changes ahead, please download our Employment Right Act timeline.

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

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law