Categories
Collective Redundancy Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Lousha Reynolds Redundancy

Consultation launched on the threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations

Collective redundancy obligations currently arise where an employer proposes to make 20 or more redundancies within a 90-day period at one establishment. Different sites, stores and warehouses are generally treated as separate establishments. As a result, large-scale redundancies carried out across multiple sites may not trigger the duty to carry out collective consultation.

Many considered that this was unfair and so when the proposed Employment Rights Bill was first introduced by the Labour government, it included the complete abolition of the threshold at any one establishment. However, during consultation, significant concerns were raised and as a result the 20-employee trigger at one establishment is set to remain.

Instead, and at some point, in 2027, the ERA 2025 will introduce an additional, alternative threshold test based on the total number of redundancies across the whole business. This means that if redundancies are made throughout the UK at more than one location then collective consultation obligations will apply if more than a certain number of jobs are affected.


Last Thursday (26 February 2026), the Government launched a consultation on what this new organisation wide threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations should be.

The Government is considering two options:

  • Using a single fixed number in the range of 250 to 1000. 
  • Introducing a tiered system, based on the size of the employer:
250 redundancies for organisations with 0 to 2,499 employees.
500 redundancies for those with 2,500 to 9,999 employees.
750 redundancies for those with 10,000 or more employees.

The Government’s preferred approach is the single fixed number. This does appear to be the easiest way to ensure that employers understand their obligations, and that employees and trade unions are certain when they are entitled to participate in collective redundancy consultation. 

Interestingly, the thresholds are much higher than many informed commentators predicted so perhaps this is an area where Labour are listening to concerns about the impact that the raft of reforms will have on businesses and the wider economy.  If you want to engage in the consultation, it can be accessed via the following link here and is open until 21 May 2026.


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

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Data Protection Act 2018 Data Subject Access Requests Data Use and Access Act 2025 Employment Law GDPR

The Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA) has passed – What does it mean for employers?

This new Act of Parliament updates existing data protection laws and paves the way for things like artificial intelligence. It is supposed to make things easier for organisations but still protect people and their rights.

The changes will be phased between June 2025 and June 2026 so there is nothing to do immediately.

I think it will change two things for employers:

The first is that it makes clear that when dealing with a Subject Access Request, you only have to make “reasonable and proportionate searches” when someone asks for access to their personal information.

The current guidance says “You should perform a reasonable search for the requested information”.

I hear you all saying ‘but what does a reasonable and proportionate search’ look like? Ultimately we don’t know until a court tells us, but the Information Commissioner’s office will be updating their guidance in due course, which will give us clues.

A reasonable search is likely to include using IT search tools to retrieve data. It probably isn’t reasonable to expect you to search archived data which would take you time and money to restore eg:- from tapes.

Is this likely to change much in real life? Probably not – we try our best to retrieve as much as we can when searching and if doing it properly are probably acting reasonably and proportionately already. If the request is ‘manifestly excessive’ we already have an existing pathway to charge a fee.

The second implication is that if you don’t already, you will need a data protection complaints process.

The DUAA requires you to take steps to help people who want to make complaints about how you use their personal data such as providing an electronic complaints form. You also have to acknowledge complaints within 30 days and respond to them ‘without undue delay’.   At the moment, we tend to bury information about how to complain in the small print of privacy notices and at the back of policies. We probably need to put this a bit more front and centre going forward.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Bullying and Harassment Conflict Employment Law Harassment Sexual Harassment

Widening the law on harassment — It’s not all about sexual harassment

Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT169 related to a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin who was working at the University and resigned during her probationary period, bringing a number of claims.

Amongst those claims, was a harassment claim on the ground of race. Her complaint arose out of comments around her accent which was very strong and made it difficult for her to be understood. These comments were found by the original Tribunal not to be harassment, on the basis that they were not motivated by race but were instead discussing her comprehensibility when communicating orally.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this finding, holding that looking for a motivation was wrong. Whilst treatment can be related to a protected characteristic where it is “because of” it, it can also occur where the alleged harasser is not motivated by the characteristic at all.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that an accent can be an important part of somebody’s national or ethnic identity and criticising their accent could therefore be related to the protected characteristic of race, and violate that person’s dignity.

This case confirms the position that the test for being “related to” a protected characteristic can be satisfied by establishing an objective link between the conduct and characteristic, without the need for the conduct to be motivated by the characteristic. This makes it much wider than the “because of” or “reason why” test which applies in direct discrimination claims.

Employers need to train managers to make sure that they understand that picking somebody up on what might be a challenging accent to understand, is likely to get them into difficulty.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Communication Conflict Dispute Management Employment Law

Respect in the workplace goes both ways

Happy New Year.

I am in the middle of preparing a training session on ‘respect in the workplace’. Naturally in that session we will be discussing what ‘respect’ means and looks like on a daily basis for the delegates.

I have been reflecting on the trend I have been seeing where certain individuals behaviours are overstepping the mark. For example:

  • They might have a grievance against the organisation but write quite toxic emails to the manager concerned.
  • These might be sent at night, early hours of the morning or at weekends or when they know a manager is on holiday.
  • Typically these emails demand a somewhat immediate response from the recipient.
  • The behaviour gets worse if the person perceives that the manager has not responded fast enough.
  • The sender is undoubtedly dumping all their emotions about something on the recipient.
  • The emails can be above average in length. A recent example of this was a manager having a meeting with someone following normal management processes on a Friday afternoon. Cue a 26 page ‘grievance’ the next day, a Saturday.

All of this might fall within what Acas calls ‘extreme difficult behaviour’. All of those who work in this space have become inured to having the odd one – we used to joke about that one personnel file that outpaced all others.

However, this is becoming more normalised. I think this is because of the general themes outside of work of expressing your views on social media, a more polarised world and people post pandemic being wrapped up in only thinking about themselves.

What is clear is this is not healthy for the recipient of this. One manager I have been liaising with mentioned her hair falling out as a result of dealing with ‘that’ person. We all get triggered when we see the name of the person who is doing this flash on our phones/inboxes.

Upward bullying is a thing. I’ve even witnessed people doing this to judges! What we are not great at is setting boundaries about this and putting some controls in place. I am struggling with this as much as you. What can we do?

The things I have thought of are:

  • Have a short policy on expectations around answering emails so it is clear what out of hours rules and KPIs on response times are.
  • Communicate to staff eg:- in newsletters that you expect all communications to be respectful and polite.
  • Be brave enough to call out the person being toxic – this becomes a performance management issue. You would be saying you are entitled to raise XYZ issue but not in the manner that you have.
  • Include in email footers the organisation policy that any email which is not respectful in tone will not be dealt with and then if people send problematic correspondence draw their attention to why they are not receiving a response.
  • Empower managers not to feel they have to put up with inappropriate behaviour – not encouraging cross grievances but saying it is OK to say when you are finding it hard to deal with something, speak out and we’ll agree a strategy.
  • Amend bullying policies specifically around this kind of behaviour – communicate that inappropriate emails won’t be tolerated
  • Write to warn people of the Protection from Harassment Act and that their behaviour could be tipping over into this.
  • Have a system of escalating upward bullying to a anti-bullying tsar who would step in and say disciplinary action could be taken if behaviour isn’t modified? Often the threat puts someone in their box.

Any other ideas?.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

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

Video | Negotiating an exit where performance is the reason

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 Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Employment Rights Act 2025 Video

Video | Employment Rights Bill 2024-25

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 Anonymity Disciplinary Dispute Management Employment Law Employment Tribunal Video

Video | Anonymity of witnesses in disciplinary matters

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel – please click here to watch the video which discusses anonymity of witnesses in disciplinary matters.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Employment Law Reasonable Adjustments

Knowledge November 2024

Around this time each year, we focus on an in-depth employment law topic. This year in Knowledge November, we’re deep diving into reasonable adjustments for those with a disability. Click below to view the latest editions:

Knowledge November 2024 – week 1

Knowledge November 2024 – week 2

Knowledge November 2024 – week 3

Knowledge November 2024 – week 4

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Duty of Care Employment Law Video

Video | What happens if an employee is arrested?

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel – please click here to watch the video where Anna discusses the issues that can arise and may need to be considered when an employee is accused of a criminal offence.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Redundancy

Redundancy consultation regarding a pool of one

In any redundancy situation, the employer is going to have to decide what selection process they follow. One of the key questions in such a process is whether a group of employees need to be pooled for selection with some kind of assessment taking place as to who stays and who goes or whether the pool just involves one person, in which case if that post disappears, then the person in post at the time is the one who is selected for redundancy.

In a recent EAT decision, Valimulla v AL-KHAIR Foundation found that it was unfair dismissal not to have consulted about the appropriateness of the pool. The individual concerned worked as a Liaison Officer covering the North West of England and there were other employees who did the same thing albeit in other geographical areas. As a result of Covid, work for Liaison Officers decreased across the country and the employer decided to place the employee at risk of redundancy in a pool of one. The other Liaison Officers were not placed at risk. Three consultation meetings were held with the individual about the redundancy in general but they did not consult about the appropriateness of the pool.

When it reached the Employment Tribunal, the original Tribunal accepted that there was a pool of one. The employee appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed that appeal, holding the consultation on redundancy needs to take place at a time when it could make a difference, which of course would be right at the beginning of the process.

Make sure that if you do have a reason to choose a pool of one, that you document what your reasons for doing that are. Include consultation with the individual affected about your thought process, ie. give the employee the opportunity to challenge your thinking and make alternative suggestions. You will then need to weigh what they have said against your own process and decide what methodology is most appropriate.

This the second recent decision going to the root of redundancies reminding us of the importance of process, that shouldn’t be skipped.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law