Category: Compensation

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.

Key Considerations for Employers and Payroll

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
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

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
Anna Denton-Jones Compensation Discrimination Law Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Pay Remote Working Working from Home

Cutting pay for those who choose remote work

View of the City of London at sunset

This week I was happily reading a ‘People Management’ article about an employer who had moved to fully remote working who was extolling the virtues of having done so, particularly around productivity. The next headline that caught my eye was that Stephenson Harwood, a law firm, had announced a 20% pay reduction for employees who choose to continue to work from home on a full-time permanent basis.  

I’ll leave aside the damage that such a move might do to employee relations and just focus on the legal issues.

Firstly, any such manoeuvre would need to be agreed with the employee in writing because it is a change to the current contract of employment.  An employee who moves to full-time homeworking is changing their place of work as well as changing their pay, in this example. Thus any change has to be agreed to. 

The  employee will also become entitled to claim expenses for travelling to the office – in this case, the employer is requiring them to attend once a month.  

One of the interesting points for me is that that the law firm has a hybrid working policy and staff are already permitted to work remotely for 2 days each week, which seems to be the average that many employers are experimenting with.  Given that those employees are not being required to agree a change to their salary, one can immediately see equal pay arguments as there is unlikely to be substantial differences between the kind of work that the employee hybrid working is doing compared to the fully remote one. The firm would have to rely on the material factor defence to justify the difference in pay for employees who are allowed to work 2 days a week and those who are working from home 5 days a week.  This is unchartered territory but if I was a betting person, I would bet that a Judge would be reluctant to find that there was substantial difference, particularly as working from home remotely, the employer saves the cost of having to run a desk in the City, the employee takes on the burden, for example, of electricity during the working day.

All good HR people will instinctively twitch at the potential for discrimination claims.  If those who choose to work fully remotely, on a full-time basis, do so because they are carers, for reasons related to their childcare or disability, they are entitled to launch discrimination claims about the indirectly discriminatory impact this policy has on them.

The spokesperson from the law firm also made a real blunder in admitting that those adopting exclusively remote working practices would be likely to be ruled out of promotion to partner level. Whilst everyone has been talking about hybrid working, we have been worrying about distribution of work so that those who are most visible in the office do not benefit from training opportunities, promotion and opportunities to do certain kinds of work compared to their colleagues who may be less visible as they are not in the room. This bold statement merely highlights the very worst fears that we all had.  Again, this kind of attitude, if followed through into practice, is likely to give grounds for discrimination claims.

I am sure we are going to see the lessons learned as we move forward… it makes me sad when I see other lawyers in my profession setting the worst of examples.  Especially in a week where somebody reported a significant increase in the number of employers reporting increased productivity or efficiency from home and hybrid working arrangements.  This was based on a survey of a 1,000 employers.  What’s interesting about that survey is that they surveyed employers in December 2020 and then again in October and November 2021, with the numbers reporting a negative impact from home working and hybrid working falling and those reporting positive effects increasing, suggesting that as time has gone on through the pandemic, people have become more used to new working arrangements and support it.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Compensation Constructive Dismissal Disability Diversity Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health Conditions Protected Characteristics

We can learn from a recent disability discrimination case

Royal Courts of Justice, London

Last year, a university law lecturer at BPP University named Elizabeth Aylott was constructively unfairly dismissed and unfavourably treated because of something arising from her disability, despite the fact that other disability related claims were dismissed. She suffered from autistic spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression, which were her disabilities.

A member of the management team talked about her with a colleague and referred to her as a good worker but “mad as a box of frogs”. This comment then got back to her.

She found herself working very long hours including weekends and evenings.

A complaint resulted in a breakdown in the relationship with her employer, in particular, the employer did not allow her to see the complaint or defend herself.

Those three acts were found to be unfavourable treatment, as was the failure to refer her to occupational health.

Other concerns involved a crass and insensitive remark made about how she should have been able to handle her workload – this was inappropriate in the context of what was clearly a poor mental state.

Her employer was found to have failed to reduce her workload or provide extra support or heed any of the indications that she was not coping. Given the numbers of people who are experiencing challenges through the pandemic, you can see how easily an employer can fall into this trap and be found to be guilty of failing to do the right things.

Whenever anybody is complaining of their workload, the hours that they are working or exhibiting other signs that they are suffering from stress and not coping, which could be falling productivity, unusual disengagement or irritability and being more sensitive than normal in relation to normal day to day work related matters, an employer should be considering what they can do to support the employee.

One of the interesting things in this case, is that the employee found a job fairly quickly, so within a 3 month period of her having resigned. However, the Employment Tribunal still awarded her £71,000 worth of compensation for future losses (presumably her new job did not pay as much), £32,000 for past financial losses – so bridging the gap between the jobs, and £20,000 for injury to feelings. The Judge noted that the discriminatory conduct had been integral as to why she chose to resign and that although she had commenced working elsewhere, she remained unwell throughout the period up to the Hearing, when she was able to talk about how the treatment she had received had affected her. This shouldn’t be underestimated.

Managers need to be aware that during a Section 15 of the Equality Act claim that somebody has suffered from discrimination arising from a disability, they need to do the following:

  • Show that their disability causes “something”. That something might be fatigue or more stressed when under pressure or to lose their concentration or not perform as well under pressure.
  • If as a result of that “something” they then receive unfavourable treatment, so that might be performance management, sickness absence management or they aren’t promoted, put forward for training or allocated work, those actions can then be connected back to the disability. The employer has to then show that they are pursuing a legitimate aim and have done so in a proportionate manner when carrying out those actions.
  • For example, it may be that managing absence or attendance at work is a legitimate aim but if the employer has not obtained occupational health advice and has not made real efforts as regards reasonable adjustments, the employer is unlikely to be able to show that their actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Pay TUPE

Post-TUPE transfer — P45 issues

View of the City of London at sunset

One of the niggly little issues that often arises when there is a TUPE transfer is around the issuing of P45s (or not) to those staff whose employment has transferred.  Often the transferor, who has just seen a group of employees depart, or their payroll provider will insist that they are going to issue P45s to the staff. This is the wrong approach and just upsets people.

There are two approaches to take depending on the circumstances. One is for the new employer to just provide HMRC with a spreadsheet of the information that would otherwise have been on the P45s, the other is to argue there has been a succession – which route is right will depend on eg:- whether the employees are being subsumed into a much larger payroll or whether just part of an employer’s employees are transferring.

The succession route is deal with in  the PAYE regulations Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) where Regulation 102 provides that the transfer of a business is deemed to make the transferee or employer who has inherited the employees a successor business. No-one’s employment has ended, so no P45s should be issued.

Under Regulation 102(8) the Transferor has to give the Transferee ‘any particulars’ needed for them to continue processing payroll. Often, if there is a formal document dealing with a transaction, there may also be contractual promises that, for example, the seller of part of a business has made agreeing that they will make available such National Insurance and PAYE records as are necessary for the buyer.

Given that this is quite an esoteric area, if this issue arises it may well be a simple explanation to the Transferor is all it takes to get their co-operation to provide the information that you need and to prevent them from erroneously issuing P45s.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Collective Redundancy Compensation Dismissal Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Notice Periods Redundancy Unfair Dismissal

Things to know when dismissing a member of staff

View of the City of London at sunset

The main risks

Anyone sacking a member of their staff faces three main types of potential push back by their ex member of staff. Firstly, the employee may claim they have not received the correct notice pay or other sums owed to them, secondly, they may claim unfair dismissal, once they have 2 years’ service and thirdly, they may claim discrimination.

Unfair dismissal claims are capped at 1 years’ salary or £74,200 compensatory award and a further basic award of up to £13,500 – depending on financial losses of the employee but discrimination awards are uncapped and may include damages for injury to feelings up to £36,000. That said, it is important to note that average awards are much less – between £4-5,000 for unfair dismissal and £12,000 for discrimination.

So how can you protect yourself?

Key advice is: Put yourself in the employee’s shoes and think about how you would want to be treated. If you follow that commonsense rule you shouldn’t go too far wrong eg:- you are likely to investigate the situation thoroughly, listen to all sides including the employee before making a decision and not jump to conclusions. Canny employers draft a provision into the contract of employment enabling them to suspend an employee pending an investigation – this protects the business for example, a disgruntled employee cannot then contact customers or destroy computer evidence relevant to the investigation.

Follow a procedure – for unfair dismissal purposes you have to show that not only did you have a good reason to dismiss (such as the person being incapable of doing their job or guilty of misconduct) but you have to show that you have acted “fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances”. This certainly means following the basic steps outlined above but the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance should be the employers’ touchstone here – Employment Tribunals judge you by this standard and expect you to be familiar with it – it also contains handy flowcharts.

Whilst employees are entitled to bring a companion along to a meeting in which they are dismissed (a colleague or trade union official) you may also want to take a witness along. This person could help you take notes of the meeting but is also there to protect you as they can confirm you acted fairly if challenged.

So where do people tend to go wrong?

The most common mistakes are:

  • Inconsistency of decisions – dismissing for something that the last person who did it just had a warning for – this is unfair. If you want to distinguish between cases you have to be able to justify it on reasonable grounds such as the length of service and previous good record of the employee given the warning compared to the one that was dismissed.
  • Failure to investigate properly – an employer has to have a reasonable belief based on the evidence before them that an employee is guilty of misconduct. Even if an employee denies something outright if you have reasonable grounds to believe they were involved or did do something – you don’t need cast iron proof that they did, unlike criminal law.
  • Dismissing someone for poor attendance record when they have a medical condition such as depression which could qualify as a disability under the disability discrimination legislation. The employee then claims not enough was done to accommodate their medical position.
  • Pre-preparing letters of dismissal and presenting them to the employee at the end of the meeting – this makes your decision look pre-judged and will result in the dismissal being unfair. You must keep an open mind – there could be a reasonable explanation behind the situation as it appears to you.
  • Decision-makers taking account of matters which are not discussed in the disciplinary hearing ie:- the employee doesn’t get a chance to address this evidence and so the dismissal is unfair.
  • Not having an appeal stage making the case automatically unfair or the appeal decision-maker getting involved in the case when the original decision to dismiss is made so that they are not impartial which is unfair.
  • Rushing eg:- walking someone into your room, ambushing them with an allegation, deciding they are in the wrong and dismissing them. Notice of a disciplinary hearing should be given at least 24 hours before the meeting and it often helps to “think” overnight before coming to a conclusion and confirming dismissal, even if you have known all along that is where you are heading – that does mean it could take at least 72 hours  to follow the procedure but it is worth investing the time upfront to protect you against criticism at a later stage.
  • Not giving the employee the opportunity to be accompanied by a companion – failure to do this can result in a Tribunal award of up to £900

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law