Working in hot weather
A topic which has raised queries from employers across the UK recently, is how to manage excessive heat and what obligations this may bring for employers. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is the most relevant piece of legislation and that is where the obligation for employers to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of employees come from. This would include consideration and management of any temperature-related risks.
Although there is no statutory maximum heat for a workplace, the Management of Health and Safety at work Regulations 1999 does make risk assessment of hazards mandatory and this would include temperature and the potential for heat stress.
The previously mentioned pieces of legislation relate to employees but fall under health and safety, therefore those charged with health and safety as well as HR are likely to be involved in the risk assessment process. In terms of employment law, the Equality Act 2010 covers the requirement to ensure that a criterion provision or practice does not disadvantage someone with a disability. There is also the requirement for employers to consider reasonable adjustments for employees whose disability or health (including pregnancy) may be negatively impacted in high temperatures.
When looking at your risk assessment, consider:
- Positions which work outdoors
- Positions which work indoors and what the indoor set up has i.e. ventilation, air conditioning, fans, sun/heat blocking blinds
It’s then important to consider what additional measures may be required in temperature extremes in relation to the risks identified for various positions and locations. This could include creating shade zones, extra breaks and hydration for outdoor staff, or moving work stations away from direct sunlight for indoor staff. There may also be consideration of home working where appropriate, this may also be relevant for those with disability or health conditions negatively impacted in extremes of heat.
Although there are no known tribunal cases related to extreme heat, there have been cases where direct sex discrimination has been found due to dress code provisions enforcing different standards for men and women. This would be the case if men were required to wear jackets and ties and not allowed to wear appropriate shorts, where women were able to wear more temperature appropriate clothing. Adapting dress codes and uniforms should be considered in relation to risk assessment for working in high temperatures. Discrimination risks are worthy of consideration when assessing whether someone has breached the requirement to wear smart and appropriate workwear by amending their usual style during periods of hot weather.
Employment Law changes now in effect:
Following the communication of forthcoming changes in previous quarterly updates, a number of changes are now in place including employees now having a day one right to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. Statutory sick pay (SSP) reforms are also now in place allowing for payment of SSP from day one of sickness absence, as well as the lower earnings threshold being removed and allowing for more workers to be eligible for SSP.
Although not part of the changes which have come into place as a result of the Employment Rights Act 2025, there has also been the introduction of Bereaved Parent Paternity Leave, which allows for up to 52 weeks unpaid leave in specific circumstances. There is no requirement to have a policy on this, however, if you would like a policy or clause to include in your handbook, please get in touch and we can provide that for you.
Trade union changes
Easier Trade Union recognition rules where only a simple majority is required is now in place and electronic voting for ballots will come into place from August 2026. There are also further plans to remove the turnout thresholds required for industrial action.
Although we have not seen employers proactively looking to engage with Trade Unions in order to put in place recognition, some organisations have made the decision to work with employees on forming meaningful employee forums to support communication, engagement and decision-making.
Changes ahead
The Employment Rights Act 2025 covers a large number of changes and many remain under consultation. The details of many changes which are not yet active, have been confirmed with known implementation dates, these include:
- Continuous service qualification required for ordinary unfair dismissal claims reduces from 2 years to 6 months effective from 1 January 2027, meaning any employees with between 6 months and 2 years service at that time will automatically qualify.
- In addition, the compensation cap for unfair dismissal claims (currently £123,543 or 1 year’s pay), will be removed effective 1 January 2027.
- From October 2026, employers will be required to take ALL reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers, an increase from the previous requirement to take ‘reasonable steps’. A new duty to take reasonable steps to prevent all other types of harassment by third parties will also come into place at that time.
In order to ensure employees are properly informed and protected, and the organisation has adequately managed risk in this area, it is important to ensure the relevant policies are in place and up to date. However, the policy only forms the foundation of the organisations approach and actions must be developed and put in place to prevent risks to workers and the business.
In practice Employers should be able to demonstrate that they have:
- Identified roles exposed to third party interaction
- Assessed the level of risk
- Implemented proportionate control measures
The impact of employers being liable for third party harassment will have an effect beyond HR policies and processes to the wider commercial relationships and contractual arrangements across businesses. It will also be important for employers to:
- build in risk assessments and compliance obligations where customer and supplier workforces interact
- As well as ensuring any HR roles have been given the necessary training regarding ERA 2025 changes, consider further training for procurement and commercial teams as well as any in house legal teams or roles which identify business risk
Changes to Casual/Zero hours contracts
The Government continues to consult on changes to zero and low‑hours contracts, with the consultation closing 25 August 2026. Although the detail is not yet finalised, the direction of travel is clear with the reforms expected to introduce rights for qualifying workers to receive guaranteed hours based on actual working patterns, as well as reasonable notice of shifts, and compensation for any short‑notice cancellations or changes. Regulation changes in these areas are currently expected to be put in place from 2027. With that in mind, a review of how casual/zero hours contracts are used in your organisation in practice, and how the proposed changes may provide opportunities as well as challenges, should be undertaken.
Reduced Qualification for Ordinary Unfair Dismissal
As continuous service periods required to qualify for making an ordinary unfair dismissal claim reduce from 2 years to 6 months, it is essential that employers look at their procedures and processes for recruitment, probation and performance.
Since 2012 when the qualifying service required to raise an ordinary unfair dismissal claim increased back to 2 years from the 1 year the government had put in place in 1999, many employers have believed they could end employment for any reason or no reason without process.
This is not strictly true as no qualifying service is required for an employee to raise a claim to tribunal that they have been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason including discrimination, whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right. In such cases, if the employer has failed to follow and document a fair process prior to dismissal, they may find it difficult to robustly defend against the claim made.
The ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance is not a statute, so employers do not automatically break the law simply by failing to follow it. However, if a claim is raised to tribunal the Code will be taken into account, and where the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, any compensation awarded can be increased by up to 25%.
The basic requirement to support defence against any claim for unfair dismissal, is to follow a fair procedure with investigation, hearing, right to respond and right to appeal, all of which should be appropriately communicated and documented.
Going forward with the reduction to 6 months qualifying service, that time period will become a critical decision window after which dismissals become significantly more challengeable. Employers should review their systems and processes from recruitment onwards and ensure employees involved from recruitment and through management of the employee, have been provided with the development required to understand what processes should be followed and how.
What can you do?
- Review your recruitment processes and ensure screening and interview processes are robust and well documented, be more cautious when making recruitment decisions.
Employers need to ensure structured reviews are in place to support them to make careful, well-documented decisions based on evidence and well documented feedback. Reasons for any dismissal must be clear and fair including conduct, capability and redundancy and a fair procedure should be followed including warnings (i.e. potential consequences of not making the required improvements) and the opportunity to improve.
To support the management of increased risk, it’s also recommended that the process of managing probation should be done earlier and more formally than may currently be the case, with completion of the process by the time the individual reaches 5 month’s service.
The themes are to be careful, thorough and well documented!
If you have any performance management or probation concerns and want support to understand what should be covered and when as well as what is required in terms of documentation, please get in touch with your Hunter Adams HR Manager who will be happy to support.
Fixed-term contracts
Fixed term contracts have long been used to cover for known periods of absence such as maternity leave, as well as in relation to specific projects and sometimes to bolster the resources available during times of high demand.
It’s recommended the reasons for using fixed term contracts are reviewed along with the wording in fixed term contracts and the processes followed. Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 already exists to ensure those employed on a fixed term basis do not suffer any detriment as a result of being fixed term. However, as 2 years qualifying service has been required to raise any ordinary unfair dismissal claim, employers typically consider the risk in relation to not following any process to end a fixed term contract, is low.
With the change to 6 months qualifying service, employers will have to think carefully about the reason they are considering a fixed term contract, how long the fixed term contract is for and the process they will be required to follow to ensure the ending of any such contract is fair and compliant.
What to focus on now:
- Review documentation and processes in relation to the management of and record keeping for probationary periods;
- Ensure your policies and contracts are updated including policies on family leave, absence management, probation management and appraisal/performance review/performance management.
- Review sexual harassment risk assessment to account for the requirement to take ALL reasonable actions to prevent occurrence by October 2026;
- Carry out assessment of the risks for your organisation in relation to 3rd party harassment of staff, identifying control measures already in place and any additional measures required to be taken;
- Communicate changes and roll out revised policies to all staff;
- Given the increased access Trade Unions now have to organisations, you may wish to review your strategy and prepare for the easier recognition process, and/or consider working with your team to put in place an active employee forum format which will provide for strong communication flow.
- Reviewing the current use of casual/zero hours contracts and planning for the impact of reduced flexibility
Appropriate training should be provided including:
- Sexual Harassment Awareness / refresher training for all staff
- Training for HR, procurement and commercial teams as well as any in house legal teams or roles which identify business risk on the impact of employers being liable for third party harassment
- Training for line managers in relation to probation management, performance management, identifying any potential harassment, day one rights and absence
At Tribunal
The most recent employment tribunal statistics available highlight a sustained increase in workplace disputes, with the number of claims being brought increasing significantly. Single claims rose by over 50% year-on-year in late 2025 and continue to increase quarter on quarter.
The backlog in the system is creating extended periods of uncertainty for employers as well as increasing cost and raising issues of data retention and robust defence where witnesses may have long since left an organisation by the time the case comes before the court.
Unfair dismissal continues to be the most common type of claim, however, the increase in more complex claims including those relating to discrimination and whistleblowing is showing a noticeable increase. These type of claims typically carry higher legal and financial risk and therefore line manager training and support in relation to how to appropriately manage people and issues early, as well as documenting the processes followed all the way from recruitment to the various areas of employee relations (absence and performance management, disciplinary, redundancy and everything in between), is more important than ever.
Cases are becoming more complex, and the system itself is under strain. For employers, this reinforces the importance of managing issues early, ensuring robust processes are followed, and using opportunities such as early conciliation to resolve disputes before they escalate.
A recent employment tribunal case against Aberystwyth University reflects several failures in how an employee was managed and led to a £264,442 award to the claimant.
The case involved a long serving, part-time cleaner who had been employed since 2014. She was eventually dismissed in 2021, following a long running and increasingly difficult working relationship between the employee and her line manager.
Over a number of years there had been repeated disagreements, complaints and counter-complaints. The employee had raised concerns about bullying and harassment, while her manager raised concerns about conduct and behaviour. The university had arranged mediation, and attempts had been made to address the relationship issues, however, these did not result in a lasting resolution.
When the situation eventually led to disciplinary action and dismissal, the university argued that this was due to the employee’s failure to improve her behaviour following intervention. However, the tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair.
The tribunal did not reach the finding because there were no performance or behaviour concerns, but because of how the situation had been handled, including significant flaws.
In particular, it was highlighted that the employee had not been clearly warned that certain actions, including any breach of agreements reached during mediation, could ultimately lead to dismissal.
That lack of clarity and structure in the process meant that the dismissal could not be justified in law, even if the employment relationship had clearly broken down.
The case did not end there. Following her dismissal, the employee secured a job offer elsewhere, but this was withdrawn after the university provided a reference which referred to an “ongoing dispute”. The tribunal found that this wording effectively flagged her involvement in legal proceedings and went beyond what would be considered a fair and neutral reference. This was deemed to be retaliatory and amounted to victimisation.
The overall financial impact was significant. The total award was just over £264,000, with a large proportion relating not simply to the dismissal itself, but to the loss of future earnings caused by the impact on her ability to secure new employment.
What employers should take from this
This case reflects a scenario many organisations may recognise. There was no single dramatic incident, rather, there was a gradual deterioration in a working relationship, combined with an inconsistent and ultimately flawed approach to managing it.
One of the clearest lessons is that process really matters. Even where there are genuine and well-founded concerns about behaviour, employers still need to follow a fair and structured process. Where expectations and potential consequences are not clearly set out and communicated, it becomes much more difficult to rely on them later.
The case also highlights how easily unresolved interpersonal conflict can escalate. If issues that seem manageable are not addressed effectively and early, individuals can become entrenched in their positions and unwilling to consider other points of view and resolution.
Mediation is often seen as a solution in these types of situations, but this case shows that mediation on its own is not enough. It needs to be supported by clear follow-up, agreed expectations, and active management afterwards. Without that, there is a clear risk that the mediation only provides a temporary pause rather than a genuine resolution and basis for moving forward fairly if necessary.
Another important takeaway from this case is that there is an absolute need for clarity. Employees need to understand not just what is expected of them, but what the consequences will be if expectations are not met. If those consequences have not been clearly communicated and communications appropriately documented, relying on them at a later stage is likely to be challenged.
The issue of references is also a key area of risk that is sometimes underestimated. In this case, the reference was a major contributing factor to the level of compensation awarded. References must be fair and factual, and where there if frustration or ongoing dispute, this should not be allowed to inappropriately influence what is included. Anything that could be seen as punitive or retaliatory can expose the organisation to further claims.
This case is a reminder that the cost of getting these things wrong can extend to include loss of future earnings, particularly where an individual struggles to secure new employment, and this can make up the largest proportion of any award. Finally, once an issue goes to tribunal, along with significant financial risk, there is also reputational risk to consider.
If you require support with any employee relations issues or would like to discuss updating any of your policies, rolling out new policies or training to help support line managers to navigate situations at work, please contact your usual Hunter Adams HR Manager or focal point.
