Category: Dismissal

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
Dismissal Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Notice Periods Probation

The top questions we’re hearing from clients this month

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

Although there are a raft of changes as a result of the Employment Rights Act (see ERA Timeline), undoubtedly the change that our clients have the most questions about is the reduction to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 2 years to 6 months, which takes effect on 1 January 2027.

The two most frequently asked questions this month relate to this and are as follows:

1.  What impact do notice periods have on qualifying service under the new regime and do we have to include them when calculating qualifying service? 

As long as the employee has a pay in lieu of notice clause within their contract and you exercise that right; i.e. you pay them in lieu of their contractual notice period, the contractual notice period does not get added to their period of service. However, for employees who have been employed for over a month but for less than two years, the law adds one week when determining their period of qualifying service. This means that even if you do exercise the contractual right to pay in lieu of notice, you need to factor in this additional notional week. 

What that means in practice, is that you need to communicate dismissal decisions over a week before the six month qualifying period to avoid the employee being deemed to have 6 months service and a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim due to the notional week of service being added. 

2.  In view of the changes, what is the recommended duration for probationary periods?

We would advise between 3–4 months. For junior roles or where employees are on site full time/closely managed, a 3-month probationary period should be sufficient. You can also build in the ability to extend the probationary period for a further 6 weeks.

That said, we acknowledge that for the majority of our clients, it is difficult to properly assess suitability and performance within a 3-month period, particularly with hybrid working and for more senior roles. 4 months does still provide enough time for a short extension of the probationary period (we recommend 4 weeks) if this is required/or time in case meetings are delayed. However, where probationary periods are extended or meetings are delayed, it is important to remember to factor in the notional week referred to above to ensure that the employee does not have 6 months service at the time of the dismissal.

We recommend reviewing and updating the probationary periods in your existing contracts before issuing them to employees who commence employment on or after 1 July 2026. You should also check that your contracts include an appropriate pay in lieu of notice clause. In addition, it is vital to ensure that managers are fully briefed and trained on any changes to probationary periods and that they understand the importance of conducting the reviews in a timely manner.

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
Anna Denton-Jones Disciplinary Dismissal Employment Law Performance Management Settlement Agreements Video

Video | Negotiating an exit where performance is the reason

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 the situation where someone has been offered a settlement agreement where poor performance has been used as the context of the settlement agreement.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Conflict Disciplinary Dismissal Employment Contract Employment Law Grievance HR

Employees bringing employers into disrepute

View of the City of London at sunset

A recent case that went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal highlights important issues for employers. The case of London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v Keable involved a local authority Public Protection and Safety Officer within the Environmental Health Department with 17 years’ service dismissed for serious misconduct arising out of comments he made at rallies outside parliament. The employee concerned had been filmed having conversations. That video made itself online without his knowledge or consent. He didn’t do anything to link his employment to the video. As a result of it being widely re-tweeted, he was publicly identified as the local authority’s employee.

The employee was an anti-Zionist and a member of the Labour Party and Momentum organiser who was attending the rally in his own personal time. The comments he was filmed making included controversial statements alleging the Zionist movement, prior to World War II, collaborated with the Nazis.

The Tribunal found that the videos were calm, reasonable, non-threatening and conversational. The employee explained that he didn’t intend to offend anyone – it was a private conversation involving an exchange of political opinions carried out between two people willingly.

A local councillor wrote to the employer calling for action against the employee so he was suspended and a disciplinary procedure was followed that led to his dismissal.

The employer acknowledged that the employee had freedom of assembly and expression which included a right to offend others (human rights). However, it found that his comments were likely to be perceived as unlawfully hostile on religious grounds and so brought the employer into disrepute. The Dismissing Officer didn’t find the employee had been guilty of discrimination or anti-Semitism but did find that “a reasonable person would conclude that the claimant had said that the Zionists had colluded with the holocaust”.

At the Employment Tribunal, whilst the Claimant’s conduct was potentially a fair reason for dismissal, procedurally the employer was found wanting – in particular:

  1. The employee had not been informed of the specific allegation which led to his dismissal; and
  2. The possibility of a lesser sanction of a warning wasn’t discussed with him.

The Tribunal found that he should be reinstated.

Whilst the case illustrates the sorts of issues employers are now getting embroiled in around social media and freedom of expression, what caught my eye was the basic weakness in the employer’s procedure ie:- that what the employee was accused of didn’t tally with what the decisionmaker ultimately dismissed him for. This isn’t uncommon. Often the allegations are framed at the stage where an employee is perhaps suspended pending investigation or a statement is made that covers a multitude, such as “your conduct in being filmed and the making of comments”. The disciplinary invite letter might be prepared centrally by HR from a template without any real liaison with the person who is potentially going to be making the disciplinary decision. There is always room for error here and before writing the disciplinary letter the writer should be thinking ahead to the evidence and what it does/doesn’t prove.

In this case, the employee quite reasonably asked which of his comments that had been recorded was offensive as this is what had been put in his invitation letter. The decisionmaker was thinking instead about the case in terms of his having suggested Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust – that was not put to the employee. The Tribunal easily found it was outside the range of reasonable responses to dismiss somebody for misconduct which hadn’t been put to them as part of the investigation or disciplinary process.

What can you do about this?

If the decisionmaker, having heard all of the evidence, wants to frame the outcome in a different way to the disciplinary allegations in the invitation letter, they should pause the process. They should then invite the employee to a further meeting to discuss the fresh allegation that they wish to consider and it may well be a relatively short meeting given all of the discussions that have already been held but it will be as important for the employee to be accompanied at the meeting as normal. They should then come to their decision.

Compensation was reduced by 10% because of the employee’s culpable conduct in making critical comments about the investigation report.

The employer appealed. Interestingly the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that it was procedurally unfair to not have raised with the claimant whether a warning was appropriate. Any employee, when questioned, would always say that a warning was preferable to dismissal! This is stretching the requirements of the ACAS Code of Practice. Yes, an employer should consider the appropriate lesser sanction as an alternative to dismissal but it is not a pre-requisite to consult the employee about that…

The safest thing to do is, routinely in disciplinary hearings, consider whether a warning would be an appropriate sanction and be seen to explain why it wouldn’t.

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

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Dismissal Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Tribunal Redundancy Unfair Dismissal

What employers get wrong when dismissing staff

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The most common mistakes employers make when dismissing people (in no particular order) 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 sacked.
  • 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, but you do need to have conducted a reasonable investigation.
  • 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 (Equality Act). 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 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 this stage of 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