Category: Employment Rights Act 1996

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

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
Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds

Employment Rights Bill update — Where are we now?

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

The recent ministerial reshuffle, which saw the departure of three key supporters of the Employment Rights Bill (Angela Rayner, Justin Madders and Baroness Jones), left many wondering how this would affect the Bill’s progress. Questions were raised about whether the Government might water down or backtrack on some of the more contentious reforms, particularly the day-one right to unfair dismissal and new duties on employers regarding zero- and low-hours workers.

However, on 15 September 2025, the Employment Rights Bill entered its final parliamentary stages. The House of Commons rejected several significant non-government amendments proposed by the House of Lords, signalling the Government’s determination to press ahead with its core commitments.

Key developments in the Employment Rights Bill

Many of the proposed reforms raise questions about how they will operate in practice. While the Lords suggested several sensible amendments that could have simplified implementation, these were largely rejected, given their conflict with key Labour manifesto pledges.

Below is a summary of the main points:

Day-one unfair dismissal rights

The Bill abolishes the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal, introducing protection from day one of employment. This change adds complexity, particularly regarding the initial employment period and the scope of the proposed “light touch procedures.”
The Lords had proposed reducing the qualifying period to six months to simplify the system; a suggestion that was ultimately rejected.

Guaranteed hours contracts

The Commons reinstated the original duty on employers to proactively offer guaranteed hours contracts. The Lords had proposed a less stringent “right to request” model, but this amendment was not accepted.

Whistleblowing reforms dropped

Plans to extend unfair dismissal protection for whistleblowers and introduce new duties for employers to investigate disclosures have been removed from the Bill.

Right to be accompanied unchanged

Employees will continue to be entitled to be accompanied only by a trade union representative or colleague during disciplinary or grievance meetings. The Lords’ proposal to expand this to include a “certified professional companion” was rejected.

Ballot thresholds abolished

The requirement for a 50% turnout in industrial action ballots will be removed, despite efforts by the Lords to retain it.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)

A ban on NDAs relating to complaints of discrimination and harassment was added to the Bill in July 2025. The Government has confirmed it will consult “as quickly as possible” on the secondary legislation required to implement this measure.

Next steps for the Employment Rights Bill

The Bill now returns to the House of Lords for consideration of the Commons’ position; a stage commonly referred to as “ping pong”, as both Houses must reach agreement before the Bill can receive Royal Assent.

Given that both Houses are in recess until 12 October 2025, Royal Assent is expected later in October. However, most major provisions, including reforms on fire and rehire, day-one unfair dismissal, and zero-hours contracts, are not expected to take effect until Autumn 2026 or 2027. Therefore, a short delay is unlikely to have any material impact.

What employers should do now

Although these significant reforms are a step closer to becoming law, much of the practical detail employers need will come through secondary legislation. The Government is expected to consult this autumn on key areas of change.

With so many reforms and ongoing uncertainty, it can be challenging for employers to stay up to date. We recommend:

  • Monitoring developments as the Bill progresses through Parliament
  • Preparing for upcoming consultations and future compliance obligations
  • Reviewing internal policies and procedures to identify potential areas of impact

We will continue to track progress and provide timely updates as new information emerges.

If you would like to discuss what the Employment Rights Bill 2025 means for your organisation, or how we can support you with tailored training, practical advice, or implementation planning, please get in touch at lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk.

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds

Implementing the Employment Rights Act — A roadmap for delivering change

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

The Employment Rights Bill was published on 10 October 2024. It introduced 28 significant reforms and the much publicised and highly contentious changes have been identified as reshaping the landscape of employment law.

On 1 July 2025, the UK Government published its official Employment Rights Bill implementation roadmap detailing when new employment protections will come into force. The comprehensive reforms will be rolled out with a phased approach between 2026 and 2027, with some immediate changes triggered upon Royal Assent (expected Autumn 2025).

Phase 1: On Royal Assent (autumn 2025)

Once the Bill becomes law, the following will take effect immediately or soon after:

  • Repeal of most of the Trade Union Act 2016
  • Repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023
  • New protections against dismissal for those participating in industrial action, and simplified union ballot procedures

April 2026 — Key employer mandates begin

From the 2026/27 tax year, starting in April 2026, the following reforms are scheduled:

  • Doubling of the maximum collective redundancy protective award (from 90 to 180 days pay)
  • Day‑one entitlement to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave
  • Enhanced whistleblowing protections
  • Establishment of a new Fair Work Agency (although it is unclear when this body will be up and running)
  • Statutory Sick Pay reform (removal of lower earnings limit and 3 day waiting period)
  • Simplified trade union recognition rules, digital and workplace balloting introduced

October 2026 — Workplace regulation intensifies

  • Ban on “fire‑and‑rehire” strategies
  • Obligation on employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment
  • Employers to be held liable if employees are harassed by third parties.
  • New Tribunal claim deadline extended from 3 to 6 month
  • Expanded union rights

2027 — Final roll-out of key rights

  • Day‑one protection against unfair dismissal
  • Mandatory gender pay gap reporting enhancements and menopause action plans
  • Rules restricting the dismissal of pregnant workers and expanded bereavement leave
  • Extension of flexible working rights
  • Restrictions on zero‑hours contract misuse (including new guaranteed hours offer)
  • Expansion of collective redundancy thresholds and new umbrella‑company regulation

Consultation timeline

To refine these reforms, the government plans the following consultation windows:

  • Summer / autumn 2025: on day‑one unfair dismissal, fire‑and‑rehire, bereavement leave, pregnant workers’ rights, zero‑hours contract restrictions.
  • Winter 2025 / early 2026: on flexible working reforms, collective redundancy changes and changes to the laws on tipping.

Summary table

Implementation dateChange
Upon Royal Assent (autumn 2025)Union law repeals & dismissal protections
April 2026Redundancy award doubling, day‑one paternity/parental leave, SSP reforms, whistleblowing protections, union recognition, Fair Work Agency
October 2026Ban on fire‑and‑rehire, “all reasonable steps” harassment duty, tribunal deadline extension, expanded union access
Sometime in 2027Day‑one unfair dismissal, gender pay/menopause plans, zero‑hours reform, bereavement leave, flexible working, pregnancy rights, umbrella regulation

Practical impact

The timetable produced is undoubtedly helpful as it provides clarity and enables organisations to structure their preparations in a more realistic way. It is also reassuring to have conformation that (for most businesses), very few changes will take effect in 2025, unless you are facing potential industrial action.

However, whilst 2025 may feel like a pause in legislative change, it’s really the calm before a period of major reform. The government’s decision to delay the most significant measures until 2027 offers some breathing room—particularly for employers already grappling with difficult trading conditions. That said, this breathing space should be used wisely. Preparations to update payroll systems (for SSP and parental leave) and to update handbooks and consultation protocols should take place.

Further, with key consultations launching this year, including proposals on day one unfair dismissal rights and guaranteed hours, we will obtain more clarity on what the future legal landscape will look like. Details such as what constitutes a “light-touch” dismissal process, or how many hours will lift workers out of new protections, are key outstanding issues that will be confirmed.

In summary, 2025 may bring fewer immediate changes, but it will be a crucial year for engagement and preparation. Employers, HR professionals, and legal teams should stay alert and keep an eye on the developments because the groundwork laid now will determine how well you are able to navigate the more complex changes coming in 2026 and 2027.

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025

Planning ahead for the Employment Rights Bill

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

In this blog I wanted to pick an area which will affect all employers when the new Act that is going through Parliament comes into force.

Sickness absence is a perennial issue that all employers have to manage.

From, likely April 2026, employees will receive Statutory Sick Pay from the very first day they are off work. At the time of writing this they would have to wait three ‘waiting days’ and not get paid until day four. For employers paying statutory sick pay only or perhaps small sums of company sick pay of a few days before employees revert to statutory sick pay, these ‘waiting days’ have acted as a deterrent to misusing sick leave, as the genuinely ill are not paid for short-term absences. This has deterred the odd day for ‘flu’ or a stomach upset. The Employment Rights Bill eliminates the three-day waiting period, removing the deterrent.

The Employment Rights Bill also removes the lower earnings threshold. This means everyone, no matter what hours they work – will now qualify for Statutory Sick Pay if they are sick. This captures more casual and part-time workers who historically may not have earnt enough to qualify. SSP will be calculated at 80% of their normal weekly earnings, subject to a cap of £118.75 which is the current rate of SSP for a week, and which increases each year, so is likely to be a few pounds greater by the time this change comes into force.

The combined effect of these two measures is more people qualifying for sick pay more often. Not only does that have a cost implication but it means you will need to review the measures you take to review absence and manage it.

Time to dust down your sickness absence policies, trigger points and monitoring of absence patterns. Often these are tools we have in our kit bag but aren’t using properly. A time-honoured method that yields the best results for managing absence is the return to work interview, yet often managers haven’t been trained how to do them with confidence.

Let us know if we can help you overhaul what methods you are using to manage sickness by contacting Anna at adenton@refreshinglawltd.co.uk.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025 Video

Video | Employment Rights Bill 2024-25

YouTube video playing on a phone

The Employment Rights Bill was introduced to Parliament on 10 October 2024.

The aim of the bill is to modernise employment rights legislation. Anna has prepared a number of videos which outline some of the changes the bill introduces:

This video discusses the duty to prevent sexual harassment and can be found here.

This video discusses the initial period of employment and can be found here.

This video discusses the removal of the 2 year qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal and can be found here.

This video discusses the position as regards the impact on redundancy and can be found here.

This video discusses the position as regards collective redundancy – so large scale redundancy and can be found here.

The videos were recorded on 30.10.2024.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Reasonable Adjustments Right to Work

Reasonable adjustments for a disability

View of the City of London at sunset

I have had a handful of recent cases where Occupational Health have advised employers in relation to employees with anxiety problems that the employee’s duties exacerbate their condition.

In all of these cases a recommendation has been reducing telephone duties so that the employee is taking less calls during the day or completely stopping telephone duties altogether so the employee is, for example, focusing on emails rather than telephone calls. In these cases, the employer has done entirely the right thing in trying to follow the Occupational Health advice, adjusting the duties accordingly, but there has been no plan for the long term. What is accommodatable initially and what is planned for when, after a few months, the employee has got into the habit of not dealing with telephone calls either at all or dealing with only a few? If you aren’t careful you end up in a situation where the employee is not performing large parts of their role and everyone is stuck.

Rather than agreeing outright to the adjustments, it may be sensible to agree to a temporary adjustment with a discussed plan for how you get from that place of a reduced requirement to carry out a particular activity and back to the contractual duties being performed.

To put it another way, given the cost it takes to support somebody’s mental health to make adjustments, it is misleading to alter things that are not going to be able to be accommodated in the long run. That just creates false expectations and could be achieving more harm than good over time.

Alternatives to reducing the duties completely might be:

  • Less calls, so allowing more time between calls in order to take breaks;

  • If there have been difficult calls, having a strategy for what steps will be taken around managing the feelings that arise from those difficult calls; maybe discussing it with the manager or taking a time out;

  • Other steps that might be agreed as part of a work related action plan.

Remember Occupational Health are just providing you with suggestions – it is up to you to decide, as an employer, whether or not you can accommodate those suggestions. It is possible that you will have roles within your organisation that cannot actually be adjusted to prevent some core duty of that role taking place. In that scenario you might actually be saying no you can’t make a particular adjustment because it is not reasonable to do so.If we aren’t making an adjustment then we need to be able to justify why not to a Judge, if that ever became necessary, so having evidence to back up that decision will be useful. Is there  evidence of how many phone calls a day are taken in that role?  What is the proportion of the day spent doing other activities? Are the phone calls critical to generating the work that the person then does?

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010

The Buckland Review of Autism Employment

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

At the moment only 3 in 10 autistic people of working age are in employment. Robert Buckland, a Conservative MP and Lord Chancellor has conducted a review to report to Government on the issue. What can we learn from it?

  • Estimates are that 1 in 70 people are autistic and if you have numbers in your workforce, you are likely to have autistic people working for you.
  • Autistic people are facing the largest pay gap of all disability groups.
  • It paints a negative picture for people around the experience of recruitment processes. The challenges autistic job seekers face navigating generic job descriptions, interview questions and challenging sensory environments, where often the focus is on somebody’s social skills rather than the actual skills necessary to do the job.
  • Even after finding work, being in employment is a challenge. The Report talks about the lack of adjustments with only 35% of autistic employees being fully open with their employer about their position and 1 in 10 choosing not to disclose to anybody at work. The Report highlights poor knowledge of autism and managers being underprepared to identify and implement adjustments. Often the onus  is being placed on the employee to identify and ask for adjustments rather than the employer taking the initiative and complying with the duty the Equality Act 2010 places on them.

If you want to read more about the Report, here it is: The Buckland Review of Autism Employment: report and recommendations

In terms of recommendations, the Report contains a long list of recommendations and things that are relevant to employers and the practical things they can do. These include nominating buddies and mentors within the workforce, implement training, awareness raising, working with Access to Work (the Government funded department, who can pay up to £1,000 for adaptations in the workplace and up to £3,000 for other support),  offering paid internships for autistic young people, siting employees in a quiet place and not a high traffic area, time out rooms, noise cancelling headphones and adjusting recruitment processes so that they are focused on aptitude based assessments rather than interview questions.

Pick one thing and try and improve that…

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Protected Characteristics Reasonable Adjustments

Disability and reasonable adjustments

View of the City of London at sunset

If as a result of somebody’s disability they become unable to do the current role that they are employed in and the employer is looking to exit the employee from that position, they are obligated to look at alternative employment. This is the case in unfair dismissal law, before you even think about the disability angle.

In a recent case (Miller v Rentokil 2024 EAT 37), the particular employee concerned had multiple sclerosis, which is a deemed disability under the Equality Act 2010, a bit like cancer, ie. the employee does not have to jump through hoops to show that there is a substantial disadvantage, has a long term effect and has difficulty with normal day to day activities. They are deemed as disabled, so we move directly to consider how they have been treated.

Once the employee has a disability, then the duty to make reasonable adjustments kicks in. In this case, the employee was a field based pest controller and the role involved him working at heights for 40% of the time. He could no longer do this and could only work very slowly. This particular employer looked at other jobs within the organisation and put him forward for an administrator role but decided not to recruit him and dismissed him.

He claims that failing to place him in the administrator role on a trial basis amounted to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal upheld his claim, as did the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The burden was on the employer to show that it was not reasonable to have put that person into the role on a trial basis. They clearly couldn’t convince a Tribunal of this. On an objective assessment clearly they believed that he met the essential requirements of the job and a trial could have been successful.

The way I look at it, the employer is going to have to convince the Tribunal why it couldn’t do this, and why the employee couldn’t be trained into the role, particularly when it is a large employer. For example, somebody who isn’t used to using computers on a day to day basis might be trained and adapted into doing so.

In this particular case, the employer had actually set tests in verbal usage and maths in relation to their standard interview process. These tests were ones that the employer applied to everybody applying for roles and the Claimant scored 16 out of 30 in the verbal usage test and 7 out of 30 in the maths test. It was clear that the employee didn’t have experience using Excel, the spreadsheet programme, which perhaps explains why the decision maker in the case, a recruitment manager, decided not to slot the employee into the vacancy. It did not however consider any retraining or any trial.

In the case, they went back to Archibald v Fife Council from 2004 and Lady Justice Hale’s summation that making reasonable adjustments requires the employer to treat the disabled person more favourably than others. This too was the case of a manual worker no longer able to carry out her duties for mobility reasons. Lady Justice Hale pointed out that there is no law against discriminating against people with a background in manual work but it might be reasonable for an employer to have to take the difficulty that that person would face into account when considering the transfer of a disabled worker who could no longer do that type of work. Essentially I think that means being more patient and accommodating with someone making a transition.

In this particular case, the administrator role was a more junior one than the technical role the employee had taken on previously. They took into account the fact that his technical knowledge and experience in doing the manual job would actually assist him in being able to be an administrative support worker to those other colleagues doing that role.

They weren’t unsympathetic to the employer having concerns about whether or not he could do the role, but the key to assessing that would have been the trial period.

The other flaw in the employer’s process was not just slotting the employer into that trial. Instead they seemed to have just treated him as any other applicant for the role and possibly even put him up against other people in a recruitment process. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is about prioritising the employee.

The length of the trial period that the courts were talking about in this case was a 4 week trial. Given that is actually quite a short period, it would be wise to pay an extra month’s salary whilst assessing somebody’s suitability in an alternative position rather than dismiss.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech – A minefield for employers

View of the City of London at sunset

You may have seen that David Miller has been successful in establishing that his anti-Zionist beliefs qualify as a philosophical belief and are therefore protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. This is the latest in a series of cases, such as the Maya Forstater case and the Alison Bailey case showing that the law will potentially protect the right to hold beliefs that are perhaps less fashionable or out of step with others, just as much as it protects more mainstream views.

We’ve known since the Grainger case some years ago that for a belief to be protected, it has to be something that is worthy of respect in a democratic society but essentially the Courts are taking a really wide view of that and it seems that only the most extreme beliefs would be excluded: Naziism is the example that is always given.

This leaves us in a position where if you state your beliefs, for example, in meetings, in the workplace, on social media and others are offended, and the employer wades in on the “side” of others, they risk committing direct discrimination against the person holding that belief. Examples in recent years have included the Page case where they were talking about same sex marriage, Forstater where it involved views on biological sex being immutable (unable to change) and in the David Miller case, the belief that Zionism is problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, if your belief system is racist or homophobic or anti-islamist, this protects your right to hold that belief and express it. Essentially, the law protects the individual’s right to express their opinions and articulate their beliefs provided that the individual is manifesting their beliefs in a way that is not objectionable, they will be protected by the law of direct discrimination. In contrast to those who step over a line and express their beliefs in an objectionable manner.

This leaves employers having to regulate between groups of staff with opposing views. Up until now, employers have taken a “dampening” approach asking colleagues whose views might cause friction with others to perhaps be quiet about it. The “ we respect your views and you are entitled to have them but given it is causing an issue please can you not go on about it” approach.

That is problematic – the law has imported from European Law and Human Rights Law the concept of proportionality – an employer having a quiet word with colleagues asking them to be mindful perhaps of policies as others have contrary views is going to be proportionate. Wading in and disciplining or excluding a member of staff from certain activities is likely to fall into the disproportionate category.

The traditional approach of having a ‘zero tolerance’ approach in Equality and Diversity Policies to any kind of bullying or harassment gets unstuck; it doesn’t work when we are juggling different beliefs and can lead the employer into direct discrimination territory when penalising someone who has caused offence.

It is still legitimate for a company to set out what its values are and expect staff to behave in a manner which fits in those values. However if the employee is doing their job but causing offence to others when they express their beliefs, real caution needs to be taken.

I recommend that you make it clear in any policies that you do have that in the workplace you may have to listen to views that you find offensive, and others are entitled to express their beliefs, even where those beliefs clash with yours, to make it clear that the employer is having to moderate and balance a range of opinions.

Where an issue emerges, seek advice before taking any steps you might want to and try the test of ‘if this person was expressing a view about [slavery/children being sent down mines being a negative thing] – insert a benign belief here, would we be taking this step’? That is likely to take the emotional heat out of it.

If the employee’s conduct is becoming problematic, can we strip out what the conduct is that is an issue and separate it from the belief? eg:- they are expressing their views to customers and upsetting them, we’ve had complaints.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Employment Rights Act 1996 Part-Time Working Remote Working Return to Work Right to Work Video Working from Home

Video | Remote working vs office working

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 where Anna discusses a recent case that has shed some light on the debate that a lot of employers are having around employees returning to the office from home working.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law