Category: Acas

Categories
Acas Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Lousha Reynolds Part-Time Working Reasonable Adjustments Remote Working Working from Home

What Acas’ new code on flexible working means for employers

A man and a woman sit outside a cafe with their laptops and coffee.

Flexible working has become one of the most important workplace issues of the last decade. What began as a benefit offered by progressive employers has evolved into an expectation for many employees, and the law is continuing to move in the same direction.

The latest development comes in the form of a new Acas consultation on an updated statutory Code of Practice for flexible working requests. While the proposed changes are not expected to take effect until Autumn 2027, they provide a clear indication of how employers will be expected to approach flexible working in the future.

The message is simple: employers will need to do more than simply rely on business reasons for refusing requests. The focus is increasingly shifting towards meaningful consultation, evidence-based decision-making and collaborative problem-solving.

Why is Acas rewriting the Code?

The revised Code is designed to support the next phase of flexible working reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

Acas has recognised that the current Code no longer reflects the evolving expectations of employees, employers and the Government. As more organisations adopt hybrid and flexible working models, the emphasis is moving away from whether flexible working can be accommodated and towards how employers can reasonably explore options before reaching a decision.

The draft Code reflects the government’s intention that employers should engage more constructively with requests and demonstrate a more thoughtful approach when flexibility may not be possible.

For employers, this means that process is likely to become just as important as outcome.

The four new principles

At the heart of the draft Code are four key principles that Acas believes should guide every flexible working request.

  1. Decisions based on evidence

Employers should be able to demonstrate why a request would create genuine difficulties for the business.

Rather than relying on assumptions or broad statements, organisations should gather evidence to support their position. For example, if a proposed arrangement would negatively impact customer service, productivity or team collaboration, employers should be able to explain how and why.

A decision supported by evidence is far more likely to be viewed as reasonable than one based on general concerns.

  1. Adapting where possible

The draft Code encourages employers to consider whether adjustments could be made to accommodate a request.

The question should not simply be “Can we approve this request?” but rather “Can we make this work in some form?”

This may involve trial periods, amended working patterns, hybrid arrangements or alternative proposals that help balance business operations with employee needs.

  1. Working together

One of the most significant themes running through the consultation is collaboration.

Employees and employers should engage in open discussions about the request, potential obstacles and possible solutions.

Rather than treating flexible working as a formal application process, employers are encouraged to view it as a conversation.

This approach not only reduces legal risk but can also strengthen engagement and trust within the workforce.

  1. Transparency and consistency

Consistency remains one of the biggest challenges for employers.

A flexible working arrangement approved for one employee may raise questions when another request is refused.

The updated Code places greater emphasis on clear communication, transparent reasoning and treating similar situations consistently.

Employers should be able to explain not only why a decision was reached, but also why it aligns with previous decisions across the business.

Why “business needs” alone may no longer be enough

Historically, many employers have relied on statutory business grounds when declining flexible working requests.

While those grounds remain available, the draft Code suggests that simply citing “business needs” may no longer be sufficient on its own.

Tribunals and employees are increasingly likely to expect employers to demonstrate:

  • That they considered the request properly
  • That they consulted with the employee
  • That alternative solutions were explored
  • That the decision was supported by evidence
  • That the process was fair and consistent

In practice, this means employers may need to spend more time documenting their decision-making and recording the steps taken before reaching a conclusion.

The legal justification behind a refusal remains important, but so too does the journey taken to get there.

Common mistakes employers make when refusing requests

Many disputes arise not because an employer refused a request, but because of how the request was handled.

Some of the most common mistakes include:

Failing to consult properly

Rejecting a request without meaningful discussion can create significant risk. Employees should be given the opportunity to explain their proposal and discuss potential alternatives

Relying on assumptions

Statements such as “that won’t work” or “we’ve never allowed that before” are unlikely to be persuasive if challenged.

Applying inconsistent standards

Inconsistency can undermine trust and increase the risk of discrimination claims.

Failing to explore alternatives

Even if the exact request cannot be accommodated, employers should consider whether a modified arrangement could work.

Poor record keeping

A lack of written records can make it difficult to demonstrate that the request was handled reasonably.

Preparing for the autumn 2027 reforms now

Although the final version of the Code is not expected to come into force until 2027, waiting until the last minute could leave businesses on the back foot.

Forward-thinking employers should use the next 12 months to review existing processes and identify any gaps.

Areas to consider include:

  • Flexible working policies
  • Manager training
  • Consultation processes
  • Record-keeping procedures
  • Decision-making frameworks
  • Internal guidance documents

Employers that embed these principles early are likely to find the transition far easier when the reforms arrive.

Practical checklist for HR teams

Before the new Code comes into force, ask yourself:

  • Is our flexible working policy up to date?
  • Do managers understand how to handle requests?
  • Do we consistently consult with employees before making decisions?
  • Can we evidence the reasons behind refusals?
  • Do we explore alternative arrangements where possible?
  • Are similar requests being treated consistently?
  • Are our decisions properly documented?
  • Could our current process withstand scrutiny in an Employment Tribunal?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, now may be the right time to review your approach.

Final thoughts

The proposed Acas Code reflects a broader shift in workplace culture and employment law.

Flexible working is no longer viewed as an exception. Increasingly, it is becoming part of how modern businesses operate.

Employers will still be able to refuse requests where there are legitimate business reasons for doing so. However, the expectation is likely to be that those decisions are reached through a fair, evidence-based and collaborative process.

Businesses that embrace that approach now will be better positioned for the reforms ahead and more likely to retain and attract talent in an increasingly competitive employment market.

Need advice on flexible working?

Whether you’re reviewing policies, managing complex requests or preparing for the next wave of employment law reforms, Refreshing Law can help.

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 Employment Tribunal Lousha Reynolds Unfair Dismissal

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

The outside of the new London Tribunals Centre

With major provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 taking effect in 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.

As it stands, most employment tribunal claims in England and Wales need to be brought within three months of the act complained of. This includes claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. Only a small number of claims currently have a 6 month time limit, such as claims for equal pay or a statutory redundancy payment.

This is all set to change from 1 October 2026. From that date, 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: The combined effect of the increased ACAS early conciliation period (now 12 weeks) and the longer time limits means that an employers will often need to wait a significant amount of time before they find out if a claim has been brought. That delay is likely to be further extended by the already overburdened Tribunal system and the delays in issuing notifications of claims. An employee who departs quietly or accepts a discretionary exit package without a formal settlement agreement now has double the time 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.

  • Identify Witnesses at an Early Stage: Identify key witnesses early and retain up-to-date contact details. Employment contracts should include a clause requiring employees to provide reasonable assistance with legal proceedings during and after their employment. If a key witness leaves, consider including a similar obligation in a settlement agreement or taking a written witness statement before their employment ends.

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 when dealing with any dispute and upon any employee exit, and ensure document retention periods are sufficient to cover the doubling of the limitation period.
  • 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

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
Acas Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Kate Walsh Unfair Dismissal

Removing the statutory cap in unfair dismissal compensation: how will the UK compare to other countries?

The European Union flag, blue with yellow stars, flies in front of the EU Parliament

The Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed late last year, and you will be forgiven for trying to catch up with all the proposed developments — there are so many! One of the most significant is the removal of the statutory cap for the compensatory award in successful unfair dismissal claims (the cap is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223).

The statutory cap will be removed at some point in January 2027

From the information currently available to us, it is likely to be 1 January 2027 on the same date that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is reduced from 2 years to 6 months.

Once removed, how will the UK fare when compared to a very employee friendly Europe?

In most European counties, unfair dismissal compensation is capped. The aim is simple: balance fairness for employees with predictability for employers.

Let’s look at the different regimes:

  • France link compensation to length of service. Awards start at around three and a half months’ salary (for two years’ service) and cap at 20 months’ salary, even for long-serving employees. 
  • Switzerland limits compensation to six months’ salary. 
  • Sweden caps awards at 32 months’ salary, depending on service. 
  • Spain applies a formula of 33 days’ pay per year of service (for post-2012 hires) but again capped at 24 months’ salary.
  • Italy operates a dual system. Employees hired after March 2015 face capped awards of:
6 to 36 months’ salary for large employers.
3 to 18 months’ salary for small employers.
Following a Constitutional Court ruling, judges now have discretion within those ranges — but the cap remains firmly in place.
  • Ireland caps unfair dismissal compensation at 104 weeks’ total remuneration. 
  • Denmark applies caps under collective agreements (up to 52 weeks’ pay) or six months’ salary for salaried employees, depending on service. 

The common thread for most European countries — compensation is capped, and employers are able to plan negotiations accordingly. Beyond Europe, caps are still the norm. In Australia for example, the Fair Work Commission can award compensation for unfair dismissal but only up to six months’ salary.

The UK will be joining a handful of countries which have uncapped awards. In Luxembourg, judges are given a wide discretion with no fixed statutory cap. Canada has no formal statutory cap, but compensation is typically limited to damages reflecting the employee’s reasonable notice period, rather than open-ended loss. Lastly, in Brazil, employers are required to deposit 8% of the employee’s monthly salary into an account which is managed by the Federal Savings Bank on behalf of the employee. If an employee is dismissed without cause the employer must pay to the employee, (in addition to the payment of accrued rights and as a penalty for unfair dismissal) an amount equal to 40% of that which the employer has deposited into the employee’s severance compensation fund during their employment. The amount of the penalty will therefore depend on the length of employment and on the amount of the employee’s monthly salary.

It is clear that the UK will be joining the minority rather than the majority of countries who have uncapped unfair dismissal awards.

What are the repercussions of an uncapped compensation regime?

The statutory cap currently guides settlement negotiations with parties often negotiating around three to six months’ pay to avoid the time and costs attached to tribunal hearings.

Without the statutory cap:

  • Claimants may be more willing to take cases to a final hearing, adding to an overburdened tribunal system.
  • It is more difficult for employers to quantify the financial risk of a dismissal, which will inevitably impact settlement negotiations.
  • High earners are no longer deterred from lodging Tribunal claims meaning an increase in litigation for this group.
  • There is likely to be more complex remedies hearings that need to consider quantifying bonuses, deferred incentives and unvested equity.
  • Where the Acas Code applies, a potential 25% uplift suddenly bites harder when the underlying award is not capped.
  • On a positive note, it is likely to result in a reduction in more complex discrimination claims and whistleblowing claims as there will no longer be a need to bring these claims to avoid capped compensation.

How should you prepare?

Employers would be wise to start taking preparatory steps to tighten up procedures and ensure a clear document trail is in place. With an extended early conciliation period, plans to increase tribunal time limits for lodging claims and existing tribunal delays, tribunal witnesses will be placed under significant pressure to recall events which took place possibly two to three years ago. HR teams can make both their and witnesses’ lives a lot easier with clear processes and consistent decision making. 

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.

GET IN TOUCH

Kate Walsh
Refreshing Law

Categories
Acas Anna Denton-Jones COT3 Agreement Employment Law Employment Tribunal Video

Video | What is a COT3 Agreement?

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel – please click here to watch the video which discusses what a COT3 Agreement is.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Acas Anna Denton-Jones Disclosure Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Grievance Investigations

Does an employer have to disclose the investigation report?

View of the City of London at sunset

At first glance, one might think the answer to this question was rather obvious, in that the employee raising the grievance is going to want to see that the investigation has been done thoroughly and fairly in order to be able to accept that the employer is following the correct processes based on the evidence.  Indeed, if you didn’t disclose these papers to the employee, it is likely to foster distress and further antagonise what may already be the steps on the way to a breakdown in trust and confidence between the parties.

Having said that, are there circumstances in which you can decline to show the employee parts of the evidence?  It is worth noting that the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to grievance procedures does not grant a specific “right” to the employee to see witness statements or any evidence that is part of an investigation.  

The employer is likely to be having to balance the rights of the employee against the rights of others who have also been named in the report, and to whom it may also owe duties such as  confidentiality, if that were the only basis on which it could obtain evidence.

The ACAS Guide to Conducting Workplace Investigations states “if an individual wishes to see a report they have been named in, they have got a right to see any parts of the report that contains information about them or that is reliant on information they have provided”.  That makes sense because they may want to correct a mistake that you have made in quoting them or if they disagree with an interpretation that has been made by the investigator. The ACAS Guidance goes onto say “however, they should not be allowed to see private information belonging to other individuals”. Thus, you would not necessarily be disclosing to them the entire report.  It may be that in sensitive cases, where perhaps co-operation in an investigation has only been able to be obtained by witnesses being promised anonymity, certain parts of the report/statements would have to be redacted.  In such circumstances, it may be that you change the names and other identifying information to, for example, numbers or letters, say witness B etc.

Ultimately, it is down to the employer to decide what the best thing to do is in each case and we would recommend that the rationale for acting in a particular way is recorded at the relevant time, so that if it is challenged later, at appeal or through the Tribunal, there is a record of the decision-making process.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law