Tag: Employment

Categories
Employment Law Equality Act 2010 HR Lousha Reynolds Reasonable Adjustments

Personal Liability for Reasonable Adjustments: A Wake-Up Call for Managers and Employers

The outside of the new London Tribunals Centre

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others has sent a clear message to employers, HR professionals and managers: liability for disability discrimination may not stop at the organisation’s door. Individuals involved in decisions relating to reasonable adjustments can face personal liability under the Equality Act 2010.

While the duty to make reasonable adjustments formally rests with the employer, the EAT has reaffirmed that organisations can only act through the people who make and implement decisions on their behalf. As a result, managers and decision-makers who play a role in rejecting, delaying or mishandling adjustment requests may find themselves named personally in Employment Tribunal proceedings.

The Facts of Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd

The claimant, Ms Merriman, worked as a tutor through an agency arrangement. After developing disabilities that affected her ability to attend tutoring sessions in person, she requested a number of workplace adjustments, including the option to deliver sessions remotely. When those adjustments were not implemented, she brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 against both the agency and several individual employees involved in the decision-making process.

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal allowed the claim against the agency to proceed but struck out the claims against the individual respondents, concluding that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was owed only by the employer.

The EAT disagreed.

Why the EAT Allowed the Appeal

The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in law by striking out the claims against the individual respondents. Although the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer, a company can only act through its employees and agents. Where an individual’s actions contribute to a breach of that duty, personal liability may also arise under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010.

In reaching its conclusion, the EAT relied heavily on the earlier decision in Baldwin v Cleves School, which established that where the conditions for individual liability under section 110 are met, Employment Tribunals do not have a discretion to excuse the individual simply because the employer is also liable.

The EAT therefore ordered that the individual respondents be rejoined to the proceedings for further case management.

The Relationship Between Sections 109 and 110 Equality Act 2010

The decision highlights the interaction between two important provisions of the Equality Act 2010:

Section 109: Employer Liability

Section 109 makes employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by employees in the course of their employment.

Section 110: Individual Liability

Section 110 provides that employees and agents may themselves be liable where they carry out discriminatory acts which render the employer liable under section 109.

The significance of both Baldwin and Merriman is that Tribunals cannot simply choose not to impose liability on individuals when the statutory conditions are satisfied. If an employee’s act contributes to unlawful discrimination, personal liability may follow.

What Does This Mean for Managers?

For many managers, reasonable adjustment requests are viewed primarily as an HR issue. These cases demonstrate that such an approach can be risky.

Managers are often the individuals who:

  • Receive adjustment requests.
  • Assess practical options.
  • Make recommendations.
  • Decide whether adjustments will be implemented.
  • Communicate decisions to employees.

Where those decisions result in a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the individuals involved may now face increased scrutiny and potential personal exposure in Tribunal claims.

Being named as a respondent can be stressful, time-consuming and professionally damaging, even where a claim is ultimately unsuccessful.

Practical Steps Employers Should Take

The decision serves as an important reminder that disability-related workplace issues should be handled carefully and consistently. Employers should consider:

Providing Regular Training

Managers should receive up-to-date training on disability discrimination law, including when the duty to make reasonable adjustments arises and the potential for personal liability.

Escalating Requests Promptly

Adjustment requests should be referred to HR or specialist advisers at an early stage to ensure appropriate consideration.

Keeping Clear Records

Decision-makers should document requests, consultations, alternatives considered and the reasons for any decisions taken.

Focusing on Collaboration

Reasonable adjustment requests are rarely straightforward. A collaborative dialogue with the employee can often help identify practical solutions and demonstrate that the employer has engaged meaningfully with its obligations.

Key Takeaway

The EAT’s decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others reinforces the increasingly broad reach of personal liability under the Equality Act 2010. While the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments remains an employer obligation, managers and employees involved in relevant decisions cannot assume they are insulated from legal risk.

For employers, the message is clear: disability adjustment requests require careful handling, robust training and well-documented decision-making. For managers, the case is a timely reminder that employment law responsibilities can carry personal consequences as well as corporate ones.

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 HR Lousha Reynolds

New Rights for Family Bereavement and Pregnancy Loss: No one should have to fight for time to grieve

Black ribbon on a striped fabric background

On 22 September 2026, the Government published its response to the consultation on bereavement leave, confirming a significant extension to employees’ statutory rights from April 2027.

Currently, statutory bereavement leave is relatively limited. Parents have a day-one right to two weeks’ Parental Bereavement Leave following the death of a child under 18 or a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy. There is no equivalent general statutory right following the death of another close family member or a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

A new right to family bereavement leave

Eligibility:

From April 2027, employees will have a day-one right to unpaid bereavement leave following the death of a:

  • Spouse, civil partner or partner (co-habiting or non-cohabiting in a committed long-term relationship);
  • parent;
  • adult child; or
  • sibling.

Importantly, the definition of family will recognise modern family relationships and extend to relevant step, half, adoptive, foster and kinship care relationships. However, the death of extended family members, such as aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, grandchildren, and in-laws, is not included.

Bereavement leave will also cover all types of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, including IVF embryo transfer loss and terminations, and will be available to the pregnant person, the other parent or partner, an intended co-parent and the intended surrogate parents.

Duration and timing

Employees will be able to take up to two weeks’ leave (prorated to their usual working pattern). The leave will be capable of being taken flexibly within 56 weeks of the bereavement, including as individual days rather than requiring employees to take one continuous block. The intention of this is to allow employees to take leave around difficult periods, such as due dates, birthdays or anniversaries.

Notice and evidence requirements

The Government has adopted a relatively light-touch approach to notification. Where leave is taken during the first eight weeks following the bereavement, notice should be provided before the employee starts work on the day they intend to take leave, or as soon as reasonably practicable. Thereafter, one week’s notice is required. Any form of notice will be acceptable to allow employees to communicate in the way that is best for them (such as via WhatsApp or Teams) and no evidence will be required.

Will the leave be paid?

The new rights will be unpaid.

This is an important distinction from the existing Parental Bereavement Leave regime, under which eligible employees may also qualify for Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.

Of course, many employers already offer paid compassionate or bereavement leave which goes beyond the statutory minimum. The new legislation will create a minimum legal entitlement rather than preventing employers from offering more generous arrangements.

However, the fact that the leave is unpaid may well limit the practical impact of this change and will likely result in employees opting to take sick leave, meaning that they benefit from contractual sick pay schemes or, at worst, SSP.

Protection for employees

Employees exercising their statutory right will be protected against detriment and dismissal because they have taken, or sought to take, bereavement leave.

The fact that it will be a day-one employment right also means employers will need to ensure managers understand that it applies irrespective of an employee’s length of service.

What should employers do?

There is no immediate action required, with the changes not taking effect until April 2027. The government has also confirmed that it will publish guidance next year, with calls for this to cover the interplay between sick leave/pay and bereavement leave.

However, and ahead of the official guidance and this coming into force in April 2027, employers should add bereavement and compassionate leave policies to their list of policies requiring review ahead of the April changes.

In particular, employers should consider whether their existing policies:

  • cover the wider family relationships that will fall within the new statutory regime and if not, update them;
  • consider whether to enhance the statutory minimum requirements- will paid leave be offered to some or all of the family relationships that come within the new regime, or does the employer think that the entitlement should extend to wider family members that are currently outside of the new statutory regime (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, etc.);
  • if paid leave is offered as part of a contractual entitlement, does the employer want to prescribe different eligibility or notification requirements and, if so, this needs to be reflected in contracts and policies;
  • train managers on the full scope of the entitlement and the regime, particularly regarding notice, evidence and the method of communication, as well as the right not to be subject to detriment or dismissal.

For employers already offering generous, compassionate leave arrangements, the practical impact may be relatively limited. For others, this represents an important extension of the statutory safety net.

Either way, bereavement is an area where good HR practice should rarely be about doing the bare legal minimum. The new rights provide an opportunity for employers to review not only whether their policies will be legally compliant, but whether they provide the level of compassion and flexibility they would want employees to experience at one of the most difficult times in their lives.

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 HR Industrial Action Lousha Reynolds

Trade Unions Are Coming In: Are employers ready for the new right of access?

Inside a warehouse with stacked boxes and employees walking through

From 30 October 2026, trade unions will have a new statutory right to seek access to workplaces, including businesses which have never previously had any union involvement.

This is arguably one of the most significant trade union reforms introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 and one that employers should be preparing for now.

What is changing?

The new regime will allow trade unions to request access to a workplace for the purposes of recruiting, organising and representing workers.

Access can be physical or digital, so this is not simply about allowing a union official through the front door. It could also involve facilitating communications with workers or enabling virtual meetings using an employer’s existing IT systems.

In contrast to statutory recognition, there is no requirement for a union to demonstrate a particular level of existing membership or support before making a request.

Only small businesses with fewer than 21 workers will be exempt from access, but importantly the headcount will include workers employed by associated and group companies (rather than it being assessed by entity or workplace).

Can an employer refuse?

Simply saying “no” is unlikely to be an option.

Once a formal access request is received, an employer will have 15 working days to respond. If the request is not accepted in full, there will then be a 25-working-day negotiation period.

If agreement cannot be reached, the union can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) for a workplace order within 15 working days. The CAC will then determine whether access should be granted to the union and, if so, on what terms.

The legislation is deliberately weighted towards facilitating access. Although employers will be able to raise legitimate concerns about matters such as national security, criminal justice and health and safety, outright refusal is expected to be difficult to justify and there is likely to still be a requirement to facilitate access in less disruptive ways.

What might union access actually look like?

There will be model terms for access arrangements and if a union’s request for access is based on them, it will make it much more likely to be ordered by the CAC. The Government had originally said it would publish a full model agreement but has taken a less prescriptive approach and will instead rely on the additional guidance in the Code of Practice, which the CAC will consider when making decisions.

The model terms therefore provide a useful indication of what employers should expect, including:

  • Access up to once a week, either physically or digitally.
  • Employers must make existing meeting facilities and communication channels available and facilitate private communications between workers and union representatives.
  • Workers attending access meetings during working time should also be paid for that time.

What if employees work at a client’s premises?

This is particularly relevant to businesses such as facilities management, security and outsourced service providers.

Where employees work at premises controlled by somebody else, the employer will still be expected to take reasonable steps to facilitate access, including approaching the client or property owner.

This is therefore something businesses may also need to consider when negotiating contracts with clients and other third parties.

What are the consequences of getting it wrong?

The potential financial consequences are significant.

Complaints about breaches of access agreements can be made to the CAC within 3 months of the breach. Repeated non-compliance can ultimately result in substantial financial penalties, with the proposed regime providing for penalties of up to £75,000 for a first breach, £150,000 for a second breach and £500,000 for further breaches.

This is therefore not a regime that employers can afford to ignore.

What should employers be doing now?

With the new rights taking effect on 30 October 2026, immediate preparation is key.

In particular:

  • decide who will take responsibility for dealing with a union access request and ensure requests are escalated immediately (particularly as you will only have 15 working days to respond!);
  • set up employee engagement forums as if your workforce feels informed and that they have a voice, they are less likely to be tempted by the union’s campaign;
  • consider where physical union meetings could realistically take place and how you can comply with digital access requests whilst minimising disruption to the business;
  • use the negotiation period to shape and limit the practical impact of the request;
  • consider how the new regime interacts with client sites and third-party premises; and
  • brief HR teams and managers on how to respond if a union approaches the business, and to ensure that union visits are handled appropriately.

For businesses that have historically operated without trade union involvement, this represents a significant change. The key message is that union access will no longer necessarily depend upon an employer’s agreement.

The 15-working-day response period also leaves little time to formulate a strategy once a request arrives. Employers who understand now how they would accommodate and, where appropriate, negotiate the parameters of union access will be much better placed when the new regime takes effect. If you do require any support with your preparations, or advice and assistance in the event that a request for access lands, don’t hesitate to contact us.

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 Law Employment Rights Act 2025 HR Industrial Action Lousha Reynolds

Trade Union Information Duty Delayed: What employers need to know

View of the City of London at sunset

Hot off the press, the Government announced last Friday (25.09.26) that the requirement for employers to provide workers with a written statement informing them of their right to join a trade union has been pushed back from 30 October 2026 to 1 January 2027, meaning a little bit of breathing space in what is already a busy month for employment law-related changes. Further details of how the duty will operate were also published by the Government and are examined in more detail below.

What is changing?

From 1 January 2027, employers will be required to provide workers with a written statement informing them of their right to join a trade union. Importantly, the obligation applies to workers, rather than employees only, and there is no small business exemption.

How about the content of the statement?

The Government will provide a standardised statement, and employers will not be allowed to change the wording.

The response to the consultation has confirmed that the statement will contain neutral and factual information about trade union membership and is expected to cover:

  • what trade unions do- providing a brief explanation of union functions;
  • details and contact information for any trade unions recognised by the employer;
  • details and contact details of any unions with statutory access agreements;
  • a link to, or a copy of the Certification Officer’s list of trade unions; and
  • a summary of workers’ statutory rights in relation to trade union membership.

It will also make clear that it remains the worker’s choice whether or not to join a trade union and that unions may charge a membership fee.

When must the statement be issued?

For anyone starting work on or after 1 January 2027, the statement will need to be provided directly to them at the same time as their written statement of employment particulars.

For HR teams, this should be relatively straightforward to incorporate into existing onboarding processes once the Government publishes the final statement.

Existing workers will also need to receive, or be given access to, the statement by 5 April 2027.

How should employers do this?

Employers will have a choice about how they do this. The statement can be sent directly to workers, for example by email or post, or it can be made continuously available somewhere reasonably accessible, such as the intranet.

However, there is an important additional requirement. Where the statement is made available indirectly, employers will need to send workers a written reminder each year confirming that it remains available and telling them where they can find it.

Employers choosing to provide the statement directly will similarly need to provide it annually by 5 April.

Employers will have to inform their workers directly if the location of the statement changes where indirect communication is relied upon. Where there is a change to the identity of unions which have recognition or statutory access agreements, the statement will be required to be reissued within one month of the change.

What are the penalties for non-compliance?

A worker will not be able to bring a standalone Employment Tribunal claim simply because their employer has failed to provide the statement.

Instead, enforcement will broadly follow the existing approach to failures concerning written employment particulars. Where a worker successfully brings another qualifying Tribunal claim, a failure to comply with the new requirement may result in an additional financial award of between 2-4 weeks capped pay.

What should employers do now?

The postponement from October to January gives employers some useful and no doubt much needed breathing space, as you will see from this newsletter that October is already a busy month!

Even for the eager amongst us, it is important to note that you should not start drafting a statement in preparation, as the Government will provide the wording, which cannot be changed. Secondary legislation setting out the detailed requirements is expected to be laid before Parliament in November 2026, with further guidance published shortly thereafter.

In the meantime, HR teams and business owners can usefully:

  • review onboarding processes to identify where the new statement will sit;
  • consider how the statement will be communicated to the existing workforce;
  • identify workers who may not have regular access to email or an intranet;
  • gather details of any recognised trade unions or statutory access arrangements; and
  • build the annual April reminder into the HR calendar.

For most employers, this is unlikely to be a particularly onerous change. However, it is another compliance requirement to add to an already busy Employment Rights Act implementation timetable.

Importantly, whilst this particular trade union reform has been pushed back, the more significant right of trade union access to workplaces is still due to take effect on 30 October 2026 as planned. For now, employers would therefore be well advised to focus their attention and preparation on that more immediate change.

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 HR Lousha Reynolds Probation Unfair Dismissal

Managing probationary periods under the new 6-month unfair dismissal threshold

Office windows at night

As employers across England and Wales prepare for the upcoming employment law updates, one core shift stands out for talent management: the reduction of the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months.

While this change formally takes effect on 1 January 2027, its practical impact is already here. Any employee recruited from July 2026 onwards will reach their six-month service mark just as the new rules come into force.

Relying on traditional six-month probationary reviews carried out near the end of the probation period now carries significant financial and legal risk.

The End of “Wait and See” Probation

Historically, employers could comfortably wait until month six to assess a new hire’s suitability, knowing they had a two-year safety buffer before unfair dismissal rights kicked in.

From 1 January 2027, dismissing an employee with six months’ service will require a fair statutory reason (such as capability or conduct) and a fair, documented procedure.

This change creates distinct operational challenges:

  • Compressed Decision Timelines: A decision on whether a new hire is working out must now be finalised well before six-months. We would recommend month 4 for this to allow time for extensions, or in case meetings slip.
  • The Uncapped Risk: Alongside the reduced qualifying period, the cap on the compensatory award in ordinary unfair dismissal claims is being removed. Dismissing a senior executive or high earner during a botched probation period could result in claims for substantial, uncapped future loss of earnings.

Rethinking Onboarding & Suitability Checks

To adapt to this condensed timeline, HR teams and line managers must move from passive probation monitoring to structured, early-stage discussions and reviews.

  • Strengthen your recruitment process in the hope that this will increase your chances of getting an employee who is suitable for the role and for the organisation. Consider the format and the approach.
  • Formalise review checkpoints during the probationary period to encourage managers to review and communicate expectations and objectives throughout the probationary period (rather than just leaving this to its expiry).
  • Address underperformance immediately. If a new recruit is struggling with capability, conduct, or culture fit, address it and document it.

Key Contractual Considerations

In addition to updating management practices, employment contracts and offer letters should be reviewed to align with the new threshold:

  • Shortened Notice Periods During Probation: Ensure employment contracts specify a short notice period (e.g., one week) during the initial probation period to allow swift termination if a fit is clearly lacking and ensure that they include a pay in lieu of notice clause.
  • Discretionary Probation Extensions: Include explicit contractual rights to extend probation where genuine reasons exist, while remaining mindful of the absolute 6-month statutory cap for unfair dismissal rights (and the need to factor in the statutory notice period of one week).

3 Immediate Steps for HR Leaders

  • Audit Recruits Hired Since July 2026: Review all recent hires and map out their probationary review and expiry dates, as well as their 6 months of service against the 1 January 2027 deadline.
  • Audit Employees with Less Than 2 Years’ Service: Underperformers? Conduct issues? Doubts about suitability for the role or the organisation? If an employee doesn’t have two years’ service, consider taking dismissal action prior to 1 January 2027 (as after that date, you will need to follow a full process and have a fair reason to dismiss).
  • Train Line Managers on Early Interventions: Educate managers that delaying performance feedback is no longer a low-risk option; early, honest feedback and thorough documentation is essential.

If you need support in navigating this change, whether it is updating documents or advice on managing exits prior to the 2027 reforms, contact the team at Refreshing Law for practical, expert 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
Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Employment Tribunal HR Lousha Reynolds Right to Work

The October ERA compliance countdown: Are you ready?

Desks with laptops and papers

We’ve prepared a strategic roadmap to ensure your organisation remains fully compliant and protected against legal risk. Below are the key things to consider with the next stages of the ERA 2025 coming into force.

1. Employment Tribunal Time Limits Double (1 October 2026)

From 1 October 2026, the statutory time limit for bringing most employment tribunal claims increases from three months to six months.

  • What This Means: For any alleged act, omission, or dismissal taking place on or after 1 October, employees have double the time to initiate proceedings. Remember that if the act or omission takes place prior to 1st October, the current 3-month time limits apply, meaning that there may be an opportunity to strike out claims where the change has bene misunderstood!
  • Key Risk: Disputes that appear settled informally may resurface months down the line. HR teams must enforce rigorous contemporaneously documented notes, identify witnesses as early as possible and ensure that the document retention periods are sufficient in light of this change.

2. Right to Work Verification Extended to Contractors (1 October 2026)

Regulations under section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 take effect on 1 October 2026, extending Right to Work verification duties beyond formal employment contracts.

  • Expanded Scope: Organisations engaging workers, platform staff, and personal service subcontractors must conduct statutory document or digital right to work checks prior to engagement.
  • Financial Penalties: Civil penalties stand at up to £45,000 per worker for first breaches and £60,000 for repeat non-compliance. End-user businesses should review supply chain indemnities immediately.

3. The Extended Harassment Duty & Third-Party Protections (30 October 2026)

The statutory duty regarding harassment shifts from taking “reasonable steps” to taking “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment.

  • Third-Party Liability: Employers will become legally liable for harassment of employees by third parties (clients, customers, service users, contractors and suppliers) across all protected characteristics, unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the third-party harassment.
  • Mandatory Action: As a minimum, businesses will need to be able to show that they have up to date risk assessments, up to date policies and harassment reporting protocols, and that they have rolled out training and refreshers in order to rely on the “all reasonable steps” defence.

4. Trade Union Access & Statement Obligations (30 October 2026)

A package of trade union reforms takes effect at the end of October:

  • Unions gain structured rights to request physical and digital access to workplaces to recruit and represent workers.
  • Expanded time-off rights take effect for union representatives and union equality representatives.
  • Importantly, the government announced last Friday (25.09.26) that the duty to inform workers of their trade union rights by providing a statutory written notice has been pushed back from 30 October 2026 to 1 January 2027, so for now, this is at least one less thing on the to do list.

Action Steps for HR Leaders This Month:

  • Update internal document retention schedules to increase the time limit for retaining documents to a minimum of 12 months.
  • Audit recruitment and contractor onboarding workflows to embed Right to Work checks.
  • Actively prepare for the changes to the law on harassment: review your policies, conduct risk assessments, action the outcomes of those risk assessments and implement monitoring and reporting procedures. Think about your existing contracts and build in provisions regarding harassment, consider your warning notices to customers and roll our training for staff.

Need tailored advice on preparing for this raft of changes? Contact us today.

CONTACT US

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

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Acas Employment Law Employment Rights Act 2025 Employment Tribunal Lousha Reynolds Unfair Dismissal

Doubling the Clock: How the 6-month tribunal limitation period changes HR risk management

The outside of the new London Tribunals Centre

With major provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 taking effect in October 2026, employment law in England and Wales is undergoing its most significant shift in years. While much attention has rightly focused on trade union access and third-party harassment duties, one fundamental procedural reform demands immediate operational attention: the doubling of the Employment Tribunal limitation period from three months to six months.

As it stands, most employment tribunal claims in England and Wales need to be brought within three months of the act complained of. This includes claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. Only a small number of claims currently have a 6 month time limit, such as claims for equal pay or a statutory redundancy payment.

This is all set to change from 1 October 2026. From that date, for any act, omission, or dismissal occurring on or after 1 October 2026, employees will have six full months, rather than three, to lodge a claim with the Employment Tribunal.

While a six-month window has long been standard for statutory redundancy payments and equal pay claims, extending this timeline across all ‘ordinary’ Employment Rights Act claims permanently changes HR risk management, witness memory, and dispute resolution strategy.

The Practical Impact on Workplace Risk

The historic three-month limitation period served as a swift mechanism for resolving workplace disputes. If an exit went smoothly or an informal grievance quieted down for ninety days, employers could generally draw a line under the matter.

Under the new six-month rule, that safety margin vanishes:

  • The Delay of Claims: The combined effect of the increased ACAS early conciliation period (now 12 weeks) and the longer time limits means that an employers will often need to wait a significant amount of time before they find out if a claim has been brought. That delay is likely to be further extended by the already overburdened Tribunal system and the delays in issuing notifications of claims. An employee who departs quietly or accepts a discretionary exit package without a formal settlement agreement now has double the time to reconsider, seek legal advice, and issue proceedings.
  • Fading Witness Recollections: Line managers and witnesses called to testify will be asked to recall conversations, performance reviews, and informal verbal warnings that took place around 18 months prior by the time a full hearing occurs (or a lot longer in some regions due to Tribunal delays).
  • Staff Turnover Challenges: Key witnesses, investigating officers, or HR leads involved in a workplace dispute may leave the business long before a claim is formally served, leaving the employer struggling to piece together a defence.

Overhauling HR Record-Keeping

To mitigate the risk of delayed claims, businesses must move away from informal, undocumented decision-making.

  • Document the “Informal” Steps: Informal performance chats, verbal check-ins, and soft warnings must be logged in writing. A simple follow-up email confirming key discussion points creates an immediate contemporaneous paper trail.
  • Standardise Exit Records: Conduct formal exit interviews for all departing staff, regardless of whether the departure appears amicable. Clear, contemporaneous notes signed off at departure make it significantly harder for a former employee to construct a contradictory narrative months later.
  • Extend File Retention Windows: HR teams should adjust internal document retention schedules. Notes from grievance meetings, disciplinary investigations, and capability processes should be archived securely for a minimum of 12 months post-exit to ensure full coverage during the expanded claim window.

  • Identify Witnesses at an Early Stage: Identify key witnesses early and retain up-to-date contact details. Employment contracts should include a clause requiring employees to provide reasonable assistance with legal proceedings during and after their employment. If a key witness leaves, consider including a similar obligation in a settlement agreement or taking a written witness statement before their employment ends.

Rethinking Settlement Strategy

The extended limitation period will also impact settlement dynamics:

  • Without Prejudice Discussions: Unrepresented employees will have twice as long to weigh up settlement offers or consult Acas.
  • Settlement Agreements: Discretionary severance packages or exit arrangements should more routinely be formalised via a binding Settlement Agreement with independent legal advice. Relying on an unbinding “handshake deal” now carries six months of unhedged exposure.

3 Steps Employers Must Take Before 1 October 

  • Audit HR Archiving: Ensure line managers submit all local notes, emails, and interview records to central HR immediately when dealing with any dispute and upon any employee exit, and ensure document retention periods are sufficient to cover the doubling of the limitation period.
  • Train Line Managers: Educate team leaders on the legal weight of contemporaneous notes. Ensure they understand that informal conversations must be recorded accurately.
  • Review Exit Protocols: Update offboarding checklists to ensure formal exit interviews and written acknowledgements are completed consistently.

Need guidance on updating your HR record-keeping protocols or drafting compliant policies or training your managers ahead of the October deadline? Contact the team at Refreshing Law for expert, practical 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
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