Implementation of the Employment Rights Bill
Details of the government’s implementation of the Employment Rights bill was published 1 July 2025, and includes some further confirmation of when we can expect a number of the forthcoming changes to take effect:
Measures that will take effect in April 2026 include:
- Collective redundancy protective award – doubling the maximum period of the protective award
- ‘Day 1’ Paternity Leave and Unpaid Parental Leave
- Whistleblowing protections
- Fair Work Agency body established
- Statutory Sick Pay – remove the Lower Earnings Limit and waiting period
- Simplifying trade union recognition process
- Electronic and workplace balloting
Measures that will take effect in October 2026 include:
- Banning unscrupulous fire and rehire practices
- Duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union
- Strengthen trade unions’ right of access
- Requiring employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of their employees
- Introducing an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties
- New rights and protections for trade union reps
Measures that will take effect in 2027 include:
- Gender pay gap and menopause action plans (introduced on a voluntary basis in April 2026)
- Rights for pregnant workers
- Introducing a power to enable regulations to specify steps that are to be regarded as “reasonable”, to determine whether an employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
- Blacklisting
- Industrial relations framework
- Regulation of umbrella companies
- Collective redundancy – collective consultation threshold
- Flexible working
- Bereavement leave
- ‘Day 1’ right – protection from unfair dismissal
Whilst the rights listed will not require implementation until 2026 and 2027, it is important for employers to start their preparations. Proactive and robust recruitment practices, absence management, performance management, probation meetings and reviews are all good practice for ensuring you have the right people on board and that you are managing them fairly and consistently to support great performance and productivity. Ensuring these good practices are documented and embedded when the bill takes effect will ensure you are prepared and carry on with business as usual. Also written policies are a sound foundation, this isn’t just about policies, but supporting managers to understand the requirements they will have to implement as they will have a key part to play.
Extension of statutory right to work checks
In attempt to clamp down on illegal working, the UK Government announced that right to work in the UK checks will be extended to cover businesses hiring ‘gig economy’, casual, and zero-hours workers.
It is unlawful to employ someone to work in the UK who does not have the right to do so. All employers have an obligation to prevent illegal working by carrying out specific, mandatory right to work checks and retaining appropriate records. Currently, this only applies to those who have formal employment status.
The proposed change forms a critical part of the Government’s plan to strengthen the immigration system, ensuring that employers who engage workers check their right to work in the UK before hiring them.
Where a business fails to carry out the necessary checks and retain the appropriate documentation, they will face heavy penalties for hiring illegal workers, including fines of up to £60,000 per worker. In addition, there could be the possibility of business closure, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to 5 years.
There is currently no confirmed date as to when the new rules will come into force, however, to ensure you’re ready for this change, we recommend that you ensure your right to work in the UK process and checks are up to date.
It’s important to remember that checks should be carried out for all workers and assumptions in regard to an individual’s right to work on the basis of characteristics such as a person’s name, accent, or appearance should be avoided, as this creates the additional potential risk of discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic. As such, it’s recommended that employers require all workers to prove their right to work in the UK.
Redundancy
With many employers being greatly affected by uncertainty in the market, sometimes the need to make redundancies is unavoidable.
When considering redundancies, it’s essential that you start by ensuring there is a genuine redundancy situation, and robustly document the business reasons for any proposed redundancies. Where a role remains a requirement and an employee’s performance or conduct are the cause for concern, this should not be used as the basis for a redundancy proposal.
Where it’s determined that there is a genuine redundancy situation, an employer must adhere to current legislation requirements and follow a fair redundancy consultation process. What this process should consist of will depend on a number of factors including the number of roles proposed to be made redundant.
Additional matters for determination will include whether the role(s) to be put at risk of redundancy are unique/standalone, or whether there is a need to establish redundancy pool(s) due to the duties and responsibilities of a role being the same, broadly similar or interchangeable with other role(s) in the business.
If it’s established that pooling is required, there must be a fair selection process using objective criteria, with the scoring process for each employee within the pool being conducted fairly and consistently supported by demonstrable evidence.
When conducting scoring, employers must also consider what adjustments may be required in scoring relating to disability or neurodiversity. It is also necessary to ensure that use of qualifications and experience to reflect different scores are fair and appropriate.
A recent employment tribunal ruled that a senior construction consultant who was “marked down” for not having a degree during a redundancy process, was unfairly dismissed. At the point of his dismissal the employee was 63 years old, had been employed by the Company for just under 23 years, and had undertaken around 77 construction projects. The employee raised a claim to an Employment Tribunal and argued that people in their 60s were “less likely” to have a degree than those in their 30s, which the tribunal accepted. The Judge found that the inclusion of having a degree or construction qualification as part of the redundancy selection criteria amounted to indirect age discrimination.
The employer was ordered to pay the employee £50,926 in compensation, which included a reduction by 50% to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed during the process in any event.
Managing redundancies well provides dignity to those who are at risk and may ultimately be terminated from their employment. However, the way you manage a redundancy process will also have an effect on those who remain in employment, as well as having a potential impact on the Company reputation.
If you have any questions or require support in relation to potential reductions in your workforce and what you need to do to ensure the consultation process is meaningful, please contact your H100 HR focal point to discuss the specific details further.
At Tribunal!
The director of an estate agent who quit his job after being offered a desk he believed undermined his authority, has successfully won a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The claimant was the Branch Manager at one of his employer’s branches from 2017 to 2022. He was then moved to another branch as his employer had recruited someone else to carry out the Branch Manager role at his original branch.
In 2023, the replacement candidate resigned and the claimant was informed that he would be moving back to his original branch. On his return to that branch, the claimant found that his employer had failed to inform him that he would share the Branch Manager role with a more junior manager on his return.
In addition, despite it being well known that the Branch Manager sat at the desk located at the back of the branch’s office, the symbolic significance of this desk was not taken into account when the claimant arrived back at his original branch and he was placed at a middle office desk, with the more junior colleague having been moved to the ‘back desk’.
There had been no discussion with the claimant about the job share or desk change and he interpreted the change in desk as an implied demotion. The claimant raised the matter with HR leading his line manager to respond with words to the effect that “he could not believe that a man of his age was making a fuss about a desk”. The claimant subsequently resigned and raised a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
The Tribunal found that moving the claimant to the middle desk formed part of a breach of the “implied term of trust and confidence”, which is part of all Contracts of Employment. In addition, the Judge determined that asking a senior member of staff to sit in a part of the office that they argue is designed for junior employees could “logically” lead them to conclude that they have been demoted.
For this, and other reasons surrounding the employer’s handling of the dispute, the Tribunal agreed that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
Whilst it is not yet known how much compensation will be awarded to the claimant, this case highlights some key lessons, including the importance of following a fair and meaningful consultation process where any changes are proposed that will affect an employee. It is essential to ensure open communications which include the business rationale for any change, and that proposed changes are clearly set out in writing.
If you would like to discuss any proposed changes affecting one or more employees, please get in touch with your H100 HR focal point.
