Category: Employment Law

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

Questions we’ve received from clients this month

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the change matter?

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

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

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

In practical terms, what does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

Fair reasons for dismissal

Maternity/family leave cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundancy

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

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

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

Some other substantial reason (SOSR dismissal)

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

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

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

The Countdown to 2027

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

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

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The challenges

Length over clarity

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

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

Legal language without accuracy

AI also tends to produce documents that sound highly legalistic.

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

Escalated allegations

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

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

Unrealistic expectations

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

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

Data protection risks

The biggest concern is one that often goes unnoticed.

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

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

  1. Focus on prevention

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

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

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

  1. Don’t respond line by line

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

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

  1. Prioritise conversations over correspondence

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

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

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

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

  1. Protect confidential information

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

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

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

  1. Train your managers

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

Looking ahead 

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

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

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Data Protection Act 2018 Employment Law HR Stress

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

UCA logos superimposed on a photograph of Rhossili Bay in Wales

By Amanda Morgan, UCA Cymru

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

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

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

The Risk Context: High exposure, low regulation

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

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

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

From an HR governance perspective, this raises critical questions:

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

Moving the Needle: Accountability over subscription fees

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

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

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

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

Built-In Safeguards: Supervision and CPD

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

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

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

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

Language, inclusion, and psychological safety 

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

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

Checklist: Is your organisation procuring coaching safely? 

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

1. Professional Standards & Credibility

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

2. Risk Management & Supervision

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

3. Diversity, Inclusion & CPD

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

Why this matters for HR leaders

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

Take Action: Secure your coaching governance

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

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

About UCA Cymru

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

0800 998 7904

amanda@universalcoachingalliance.org

GET IN TOUCH

Amanda Morgan
UCA Cymru

Universal Coaching Alliance logo.
UCA Cymru Welsh dragon logo.

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

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

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

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

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

The new mileage allowance rates at a glance

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

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

Key considerations for employers and payroll

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

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

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

Wider Implications: Self-employed and landlords

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

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

View of the City of London at sunset

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

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

The new 2026 rates

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

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

Why the difference?

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

What employers need to do by the 1st of May

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

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

The business case for the Real Wage

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

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

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

Is your business ready for the transition?

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds

The advice we’ve been asked for in April

Cut-out question marks on speech bubbles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

April ERA Recap: Navigating the new employment reality

Office windows at night

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

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

The April recap

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

1. The end of the SSP waiting period 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Collective consultation

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

5. Sexual harassment whistleblowing 

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

What’s next? The countdown to 2027

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

1. The end of the qualifying period

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

2. The removal of the compensation cap

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

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

Our legal perspective

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

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

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

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

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

Guest Blog | UK workplace drug testing

Forensic Resources Ltd logo

By Abi Carter of Forensic Resources Ltd

How to avoid unfair dismissal pitfalls

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

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

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

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

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

The benefits of POCT:

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

The critical limitation:

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

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

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

Why laboratory confirmation is essential

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

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

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

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

The “medication” factor: understanding context

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

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

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

A fair and defensible process: 7 steps for employers

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

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

Why being “test-ready” matters

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

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

About Forensic Resources Ltd (FRL)

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

029 2267 6699

info@forensicresources.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Abi Carter
Forensic Resources Ltd

Key takeaways for HR professionals (FAQs)

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

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

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

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

Does a positive result always mean impairment?

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

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Beliefs Case Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Tribunal Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech Lousha Reynolds

Balancing Beliefs: Why the EAT Lister v New College Swindon judgement matters

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The UK employment law community is awaiting a pivotal decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): the judgement in Lister v New College Swindon.

Following a preliminary hearing in May 2025, this appeal is one of the most significant belief discrimination cases of the year. For employers, particularly those in the education and public sectors, the outcome will define the practical boundaries between an employee’s right to hold gender-critical beliefs and an employer’s duty to protect service users from harassment.

The Background: Where we left off

The original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision in March 2024 was a comprehensive victory for the employer. Kevin Lister, a maths lecturer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to use the preferred name and pronouns of a transitioning student (“Student A”).

The ET found that while Mr Lister’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following the precedent in Forstater), his manifestation of those beliefs was “objectionable.” Key factors included:

  • The power imbalance: Mr Lister was a teacher in a position of authority over a minor. 
  • The gender-neutral approach: Rather than using the student’s name, he gestured toward them, which the student found demeaning. 
  • Refusal to comply: During the disciplinary process, he maintained he would not change his behaviour, leaving the college with little choice but to dismiss him to prevent ongoing harm.

Why the appeal is critical

The EAT is now considering whether the first tribunal correctly applied the “boundary” between holding a belief and manifesting it. Mr Lister’s appeal argues that:

  1. The college’s gender reassignment policy was inherently discriminatory by requiring him to act against his conscience.
  2. The tribunal failed to properly balance his Article 9 (Freedom of Thought) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

For legal practitioners, the central question is whether an employer can mandate the use of preferred pronouns in a workplace or educational setting without it amounting to “compelled speech” or indirect discrimination.

What employers should watch for

This judgement will likely provide much-needed clarity on the “proportionality” test. We expect the EAT to address:

Key Issue Employer Consideration 
Manifestation vs. Belief At what point does expressing a belief become “manifestly objectionable” conduct? 
Policy Enforcement Can an employer fairly dismiss an employee solely for refusing to follow a “preferred pronoun” policy? 
Safeguarding Does the duty of care toward students/vulnerable groups trump an employee’s right to manifest their beliefs? 

Practical steps for HR and management

While we await the final word from the EAT, businesses should not remain static. We recommend:

  • Reviewing equality policies: Ensure your policies on gender reassignment and religion/belief are balanced. They should emphasise respect and dignity for all without appearing to indoctrinate or silence protected beliefs.
  • Training on clashing rights: Managers need to understand that two people can have competing protected characteristics. The goal is to manage the impact of the behaviour, not the belief itself.
  • Focus on proportionality: If an employee refuses to comply with a policy, consider whether a less severe sanction than dismissal is possible, unless, as in Lister’s case, the employee makes it clear they will never change their conduct.

Looking ahead

The Lister appeal arrives at a time of heightened sensitivity, following the Government’s long-awaited (and still debated) guidance on gender questioning children in schools. The EAT’s decision will serve as a lighthouse for how these complex, often emotive issues are handled in the tribunal system for years to come.

Do your current Equality and Diversity policies align with the latest EAT guidance?

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