Search and find what you need faster.

Posts Tagged ‘employment’

The Employment Rights Bill: key considerations for businesses

Posted on: July 28th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

With the upcoming Employment Rights Bill progressing towards Royal Assent, Senior Associate Joanne Leach examines the key preparations employers and businesses should consider to ensure their workplace policies are both compliant and productive.

Joanne’s comments were published in ICAEW Insights, 28 July 2025, and can be found here.

“The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) will introduce sweeping reforms to UK employment law, when it becomes law, with phased implementation beginning when the Bill receives royal assent (likely to be in Autumn 2025) and gathering pace in April 2026, through to 2027.

“The Employment Rights Bill is the most comprehensive reform of UK employment law in a generation. For many employers, this won’t just be a policy update – it will require a cultural shift.

“The phased rollout gives employers time, but not an excuse to delay. Reviewing contracts, policies and training now will save significant disruption later.

“One of the biggest risks is inconsistency: applying new rules unevenly across teams or locations could open the door to discrimination claims.

“Handled well, implementation of these reforms could enhance retention, improve transparency, and position businesses as employers of choice. Implementation of the ERB won’t be just about compliance – it will be an opportunity to future-proof workforce strategy.

“The new right to request predictable hours will require a rethink for sectors reliant on casual labour but it also offers a chance to build more stable, engaged workforces.

“Agency workers will see meaningful gains in transparency and protection. Employers must ensure these workers are not overlooked in compliance planning.”

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Navigating the Employment Rights Bill

Posted on: July 25th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The Employment Rights Bill proposes significant changes to employment law and employers and HR professionals will be required to navigate complex changes over the next two years to ensure compliance with it. This will undoubtedly be a daunting time for all, but the businesses that navigate this period with the most success will be those who proactively take steps early on.

This guide explains what you should be doing and when to ensure that you, as an employer and business owner, can navigate the changes likely to be passed into law in the most effective way. 

Mitigating compliance risks

  1. Audit and update contracts and policies

By completing an HR Audit (including a comprehensive review of all employment contracts, staff handbooks and policies) employers can ensure that the definitions and procedures contained within satisfy the new legal requirements. Particular attention should be paid to clauses and policies that affect part-time, agency, and zero-hours workers, as their rights are expected to be significantly strengthened in the Bill.

  1. Train line managers and HR teams

Education is key to compliance, but while there is a lot of information on the Bill out there, some sources are more reliable than others. By providing proper training to managers and HR teams by those who truly understanding the employment law changes contained within the Bill, employers can ensure that their staff receive accurate information (thus increasing the likelihood of compliance). Any training provided should go beyond the strict legal requirements and include practical scenarios, such as handling flexible working requests, conducting fair dismissals, and interactions with trade unions. As the supporting regulations are introduced, training should be reviewed and updated to ensure it reflects current legal requirements.

  1. Implement a compliance calendar

Creating a timeline that maps out the implementation of the Bill and details the changing requirements, necessary training, and communications to staff, will help achieve a smooth transition.

  1. Engage with consultation processes

As the consultation process on the Bill is ongoing, prudent employers will pay close attention to the government debates. Through keeping a keen eye on its progress, employers will be able to take advantage of any opportunity to partake in industry consultations, ensuring the needs of the sector they operate in are fully considered.

Strategic objectives for employers

  1. Strengthen employer brand

More than ever, employees are holding their employers accountable for how they treat their staff and any breaches of law that may occur. By publishing the proactive steps taken to ensure compliance with the Bill, employers will demonstrate that they are aware of and respect their legal obligations. Not only will this help to mitigate the risk of legal claims, but it will also help to attract high-quality employees. Employers who highlight their commitment to fairness, transparency, and employee well-being will differentiate themselves in a competitive hiring market.

  1. Drive operational efficiencies

The more efficient a business is, the smoother it runs and the more profit it makes. Taking the time to implement the Bill correctly can also provide an opportunity to revisit existing processes to assess their efficiency and determine whether they can be streamlined. By ensuring that standardised documentation and decision-making protocols are in place, the risk of inconsistent practices and associated complaints is reduced.

  1. Foster a culture of trust

Going beyond the strict legal requirements and involving affected employees in the implementation of all changes required by the Bill will help to foster a culture of trust. Open communication, for example, via surveys and focus groups, will create a positive workplace culture.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Employment Rights Bill: looking to the future

Posted on: July 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Several of the changes in the Employment Rights Bill which are expected to have the most significant impact will not take effect until 2027 at the earliest. As these changes will mark a drastic departure from the current law, sufficient time is needed for meaningful consultation to take place and for the drafting to be finalised. Given the monumental impact they will bring, it is essential for both employees and employers that they are well thought out and communicated, to reduce the risk of misunderstandings and claims resulting from confusion.

Protection from unfair dismissal from the commencement of employment

Currently, employees must have two years of continuous service to be afforded the right not to be unfairly dismissed (except in a limited number of situations known as automatic unfair dismissal). Before this time, employees are not legally entitled to written reasons for their dismissal.

The Bill will provide employees with protection from unfair dismissal from the first day of their employment. However, the protection will not extend to employees who have entered into an employment contract but have not commenced work (subject to some exceptions), including where the dismissal is due to an automatically unfair reason, such as political opinion or affiliation, or a spent conviction.

We expect to see regulations which detail a light-touch dismissal policy during the initial period (the government has expressed a preference for a nine-month period). This is expected to apply:

  • Where the termination date is no later than three months after the end of the initial period, so long as the notice to terminate the employment was provided during the initial period and;
  • The reason for dismissal is capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason.

During this initial period, there will be a different compensation regime for employees who are unfairly dismissed. Where notice is given to terminate the employment after the initial period, employers will be required to provide written reasons for dismissal if requested.

The government has stated its intention to extensively consult on areas of this reform, including the initial period as well as the process required to terminate employment during this time.

Concerns have been raised regarding the time required to implement this change. Last week, the Conservatives brought forward a measure to defeat the proposed day one protection from unfair dismissal. In what appears to be a simpler solution, the House of Lords voted 304 to 160 to support amending the qualifying period to six months. We are yet to see how the Government will respond to this. Day one protection was a key part of the Government’s manifesto and it will have to decide whether a more in-depth review of the system is required, or whether the proposed Conservative amendment will work just as well. There are several factors which could influence its decision-making, including:

  • The Conservatives’ proposal is simpler for employers and employees to understand, which could result in higher levels of compliance. The hope would be that this would, consequently provide clarity, resulting in fewer incorrect cases being brought before the Employment Tribunal and stretching an already overworked resource even further.
  • As there would be fewer changes to implement via the Conservatives’ proposal, less consultation would be required, meaning that it could become law before the end of the year.

Collective consultation

The requirement to adhere to the collective consultation process will be extended to situations where an employer intends to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment, or where the threshold test is met. The threshold test has yet to be defined, but we expect it will be based on a percentage of employees being made redundant. It will also not be a requirement for employers to consult with all representatives together, or to reach the same agreement with all representatives.

Gender pay gap and menopause action plan

Whilst it can be introduced voluntarily in 2026, it will be mandatory from 2027 for employers with 250+ employees to report on their plans to reduce the gender and menopause pay gaps in their company. There will be penalties for non-compliance.

From 2027, employers will also have to include contract workers in their gender pay gap reports.

Enhanced protection for pregnant women and new mothers

Currently, women who are at risk of redundancy have the right to be offered any available suitable alternative employment, once they inform their employer they are pregnant, or if their expected date of childbirth was less than 18 months ago.

The Bill intends to introduce regulations which shall cover protection from other dismissals taking place during pregnancy, maternity leave or following a return to work (for a period of six months).

Further harassment protections

Employers are already expected to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment – what these steps actually look like are expected to be specified in 2027.

Bereavement leave

Unless an employee’s child dies under the age of 18 or is stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy, there is currently no statutory right to bereavement leave. The Bill intends to introduce a ‘day one right’ to at least one week of (unpaid) bereavement leave for employees. Regulations will define the relationship between the employee and the deceased. 

Zero hour contracts

Currently, employers are permitted to engage individuals on zero-hour contracts, provided they do not prevent the individuals from working for another employer.

The government had promised to introduce a ban on ‘exploitative’ zero-hour contracts, but the Bill does not actually go that far. Instead, it gives those on zero-hour contracts the right to a guaranteed-hours contract if they work regular hours over a defined period. Once an employee establishes a pattern of regular working over a 12-week period, employers are obliged to offer regular hours. Should an individual wish to remain on a zero-hour contract, they can. 

These amendments would provide individuals with security while allowing them to remain on a zero-hours contract if they prefer, and will also apply to agency workers. The details of this amendment will be contained in secondary legislation and therefore, it is possible that the length of the reference period, exceptions to the rights and conditions for qualifying for this protection may change in the coming months.

However, on 2 July 2025, during a debate in the House of Lords, the majority voted in favour of altering this requirement from a duty to offer guaranteed hours to a right for workers to request guaranteed hours, with an obligation on employers to grant such a request.

The Bill also proposes that workers on these contracts will be entitled to ‘reasonable’ notice of any shift changes, as well as compensation if a shift is cancelled or cut short. However, the House of Lords again voted for this to be altered to ‘short notice’, requiring that if a shift is cancelled on less than 48 hours’ notice, compensation would be paid.

Access to flexible working

Employees are entitled to make flexible working requests from the first day of their employment and there is no limit to the number of requests which can be made. Under the Bill, should an employer refuse an application, it will now have to explain the reason for the refusal and why it considers its decision reasonable. There is no change to the penalty for breaching the requirements of how to deal with a request, which remains 8 weeks’ pay. It may be that the second draft, or draft regulations, includes guidance on what steps an employer should take before refusing a request.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Employment Rights Bill 2025: strengthened protection for workers

Posted on: July 23rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The Bill will introduce several significant changes in October 2026. While a number of these changes are still subject to consultation, the aim is clear: to strengthen protection for workers. These changes will drastically alter employers’ obligations towards their staff, increasing the risk of non-compliance if employers fail to educate themselves, which in turn brings financial and reputational risks.

Reforms to ‘fire and rehire’

While there have always been reputational and industrial relations risks associated with the practice of fire and rehire, it is a lawful practice.

The Government had previously indicated that the Bill would abolish fire and rehire. This quickly became so that it would significantly restrict its use.

It is expected that the Bill will make dismissing an employee for refusing to agree to a contract variation about key contractual terms automatically unfair. The key contractual terms are expected to include pay, working hours, pension, time-off rights, and others. It is expected that the regulations which shall accompany the Bill will define ‘key contractual terms’

However, the restrictions will not be all-encompassing. Where there is a genuine need to avoid serious financial issues that may threaten a business, employers may still be permitted, after a detailed and thorough consultation, to exercise the practice of fire and rehire.

The government intends to review the code of practice in the autumn, following an exercise to collect views on the proposed amendments. Following this, the changes are expected to take effect in October 2026.

Fair Pay Agreement – adult social care

The adult social care industry is notoriously a low-paid sector. The Bill aims to enhance the market by introducing the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body (the ‘Negotiating Body’), which will be responsible for negotiating pay and terms and conditions for care workers. The Negotiating Body will comprise trade union representatives and employees working in the sector. The hope is that the introduction of the Fair Pay Agreement will address current recruitment and retention challenges in the industry. However, this change shall come with increased costs for employers who should expect to pay higher salaries and provide better working conditions.

Allocation of tips

From October 2021, over two million workers have seen an increase in the amount of money they take home each month. This was after the introduction of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, which requires employers to ensure that all qualifying tips, gratuities, and service charges are passed on to their workers without deductions (excluding statutory deductions).

The Bill will require employers to consult with trade union or elected representatives (or the workers directly) before publishing the first version of a written policy on the allocation of tips. The policy will need to be reviewed every three years, and employers will need to conduct anonymous surveys on how tips are allocated to ensure that workers feel free to speak up about any issues they consider unfair.

Prevention of sexual harassment

From 26 October 2024, employers have been under a duty to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Reasonable steps include creating a policy on the standards of behaviour expected and what employees can do if this standard is breached, providing training, and undertaking risk assessments. The Bill extends the steps that must be taken to ‘all reasonable steps’ and gives the government the power to define ‘all reasonable steps’ in regulations. We await further information on these regulations.

Third-party harassment

Currently, employers are not explicitly/directly liable for harassment their employees are subjected to by customers/clients/other third parties. The Bill will change this position, making employers liable for third-party harassment, including sexual harassment, unless they took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

Trade union measures

Presently, trade unions do not have the right to access the workplace to recruit or organise members unless an employer agrees to provide access or it is ordered to do so by the Central Arbitration Committee.

The Bill is expected to provide trade union officials with greater access and improve trade unions’ ability to support and advocate for their members by:

  • repealing the requirement of minimum turnouts in strike ballots and minimum service levels during industrial action (which was only recently introduced by the previous conservative government);
  • requiring employers to remind workers in their terms of employment (section 1 statement) that they have the legal right to join a trade union. Employers will also be required to remind workers of this right regularly;
  • providing trade unions with a right to access workplaces in a regulated and responsible manner to meet, represent, recruit, and organise members;
  • reforming various aspects of existing trade union law to:
    • eliminate restrictions on trade union activities;
    • make ballots simpler and more flexible (including electronic votes);
    • stop the replacement of strikers with agency workers; and
    • reduce the threshold of support required for trade union recognition and simplify the statutory recognition process;
  • creating provision for improved resources, time for trade union reps to perform their duties; and
  • introducing new protections for trade union equality reps and against trade union-related intimidation and dismissal.

Extending tribunal time limits

The majority of employment tribunal claims must be brought within three months, minus one day, of the date the act complained of occurred. This has been viewed, for some time, as a relatively short period compared to disputes in civil courts, and potentially prejudicial to the pursuit of justice.

The Bill will extend the time limit to bring claims to six months. It was anticipated that this would apply to all claims. However, breach of contract claims have been omitted from the proposal. This may be a typo and inadvertent omissions, but only time will tell.

The extension of the deadline is expected to result in more employees bringing action against their employers. Therefore, employers must stay up to date with changes in employment law to mitigate the risk of litigation.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

The Employment Rights Bill: what comes next?

Posted on: July 22nd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

What happens next?

It is anticipated that six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and the first amendments are implemented, the second wave of changes will take place. These changes will have a substantial impact on how employers manage the day-to-day operations of their businesses.

Collective redundancy

Currently, when an employer proposes to make 20 or more employees at one establishment redundant within 90 days, it must comply with the requirements of collective consultation. A failure to do so could result in a protective award of up to 90 days’ pay.

From April 2026, the protective award is expected to double to 180 days’ pay, per employee. The increased costs on employers for failing to comply with legislative requirements are hoped to reinforce that compliance is not optional. Redundancy, especially collective redundancy, remains a complex area of employment law. Proactively seeking legal advice proactively is essential to ensure legal compliance and protect the business.  

‘Day one’ paternity leave and unpaid parental leave

The current law requires employees to have one complete year of service to be eligible for parental leave and 26 weeks (assessed 15 weeks before the expected birth week). The Bill proposes removing the qualifying period so that the entitlement to leave becomes a right from the first day of employment. As more and more individuals become entitled to leave from the first day of employment, businesses will need to review how they operate on a day-to-day basis to ensure that these periods of leave do not adversely affect their staff by increasing their workload to unmanageable levels.

Whistleblowing protections – Sexual harassment

In October 2024, employers were required to take steps to prevent sexual harassment.

The Bill will introduce a protection for those who make disclosures of sexual harassment. By making disclosures about sexual harassment that has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur a ‘protected disclosure’, the Bill protects those who make such disclosures from detriments, up to and including dismissal, under whistleblowing protections. Any dismissal in retaliation for making a protected disclosure shall remain automatically unfair.

Fair worker agency

The minimum standards to which employees are entitled are currently governed by their respective authorities. For example, HMRC monitors if employers are paying the national minimum wage.

From April 2026, we expect to see the introduction of an independent enforcement body, the Fair Worker Agency (‘the Agency’). The powers of the Agency will extend beyond merely enforcing the minimum standards to which employees are entitled. It shall also have the power to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunal for employees who are unwilling to, or unable to, themselves. Throughout litigation, the Agency will provide legal assistance, support or representation to litigants in person. Where the Agency brings or assists in a successful claim, it shall be able to recover its costs from the employer.

The introduction of the Agency aims to improve business compliance with employment legislation. Employers’ practices will be under more scrutiny than ever, as individuals become increasingly educated about their rights and entitlements. Businesses should conduct regular HR audits to ensure they remain compliant with the ever-evolving employment laws. 

Statutory sick pay

Currently, employees are only eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) if they meet the following eligibility criteria:

  1. earn an average of at least £125 per week; and
  2. are ill for more than three days in a row (including non-working days).

The proposed changes will result in more employees being eligible. For the first time, all workers will be entitled to SSP, as the lower earning threshold has been removed, along with the three-day waiting period. Individuals will be entitled to SSP from their first day of illness, provided they are ill for two or more consecutive days. Therefore, the costs to employers will increase – prudent employers will be vigilant about workload and workplace practices that contribute to illness, in order to prevent individuals from becoming sick. They will also need to review their long-term absence policies and take proactive steps to facilitate a return to work.

Trade union measures

To modernise the balloting of union members and streamline processes, the bill will introduce ‘e-balloting’ and make the preferred use of electronic mail. The hope is that by improving efficiency, trade unions shall be able to provide improved and quicker support for their members.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

The Employment Rights Bill: The journey so far

Posted on: July 21st, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The Employment Rights Bill – the journey so far

Published in October 2024, the Employment Rights Bill (‘the Bill’) introduced 28 significant changes to transform employment law. The changes are comprehensive and will transform many aspects of employment. Affecting all industries, the Bill will impact all employees, and every business which engages workers.

As a key component in the Government’s ‘Make Work Pay’ plan, the aim of introducing the bill is simple, to improve employment rights for workers. The proposed changes are hoped to help more people stay in work and consequently for living standards to be improved. This week, we shall be publishing a series, taking each of the implementation stages in turn to explain the anticipated changes, concluding on Friday with considerations as to what employers can do to prepare.

Since October 2024, the Bill has made its way through many of the required stages, and on 1 July 2025, the government published a roadmap for its delivery. Most recently in parliament on 7 July 2025, the Bill is currently in the final stages in the House of Lords (the Report stage). Once the Bill is passed by the House of Lords, it will return to the House of Commons for consideration of the amendments made.

The projected road map provides employers with advanced warning of the order and dates the changes shall come into effect. While the implementation dates and the anticipated changes to the law may alter, proactive and prudent employers will take this time to educate themselves on what is expected, in order to ensure it is fully prepared. The saying “fail to prepare, prepare to fail” has never felt more relevant to employment law.

The roadmap

The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in autumn this year, and as early as September. As the first week of school summer holidays is upon us, and many employers are working with a reduced workforce, it is imperative that the upcoming changes are not overlooked and preparation is not postponed.

Whilst there is no guarantee the Bill will receive Royal Assent as planned, as the biggest changes proposed come from within the Government, it is hoped that they will not delay the Bill’s implementation. Employers must keep abreast of the immediate changes and developments as well as those expected in April 2026, and subsequent changes in 2027. to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of complaints and litigation.

Immediate effect and winter 2025

Repeal the Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Act 2023 and the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016

Only recently introduced by the previous Conservative Government, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 provided the government the right to set out the minimum service level to be provided during strike action in the following industries:

  • Border security;
  • Decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel;
  • Education services;
  • Fire and rescue services;
  • Health services; and
  • Transport services.

The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a number of restrictions on strikes, including restrictions on picketing, higher ballot thresholds and the requirement to provide longer notice periods.

The Bill is currently being amended to including provisions the Government consulted on in December last year in relation to simplify the information unions will be required to provide employers in relation to industrial action. We await confirmation of what the simplified information shall be. By reducing the information required, it is hoped that the scope for employers to request injunctions preventing industrial actions on the basis of a union’s failure to comply with the legislative requirements is reduced.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 shall be repealed as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent as will the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, without consultation.

Protection for taking part in industrial action and being a trade union member

The Supreme Court recently held in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer that an employee who participates in industrial action is not protected from detriments short of dismissal for doing so.

As currently drafted, the Bill would introduce protection from detriments short of dismissal for employees who take part in industrial action. The rights of representatives of recognised trade unions would also be increased, to enable them to better support their members. Adding to a representative’s current right to paid time off, they would also be provided with reasonable facilities and accommodations to carry out their duties.

Consultation as to the protections and rights of trade unions are expected to begin as soon as winter 2025 with an intended implementation date in October 2026.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

FCA Widens Scope of Non-Financial Misconduct Rules

Posted on: July 3rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments on the FCA’s announcement that it will treat bullying and harassment as serious ‘non-financial misconduct’ across all regulated firms – not just banks.

Emma’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 2 July 2025, and can be found here.

“For too long there has been a mismatch between what the FCA’s rules say about non-financial misconduct and what has actually been said and done about such behaviour.

“Under these new guidelines, poor personal behaviour will be treated in the same way as financial misconduct, meaning it will need to be shared in regulatory references to the FCA. As such, it will be much harder for individuals to move from firm to firm to escape their disrepute.

“In addition to the implications on individuals, the new rules will help the regulator to spot cultural failings in firms, which in turn helps to identify instances of poor decision making and risk management, both of which are vitally important qualities in this industry.”

For more information on our employment services, please click here

Beyond the Crowd: The People Behind Events and the Contracts That Empower Them

Posted on: June 27th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

As Glastonbury welcomed hundreds of thousands of festival-goers this summer, most of us were preoccupied with set times, glitter face paint, and avoiding sunstroke. But behind the scenes, it’s not just the headliners who deserve your attention. For founders, entrepreneurs, and anyone involved in running events—whether that’s a one-off music festival, tennis events involving copious amounts of strawberries and cream, or a touring experience—it’s crucial to understand who you’re hiring, how, and what that means legally.

The rise of the gig economy reshaped the employment landscape. It’s provided event organisers with the flexibility they require and permitted individuals to work on their terms. Employers have often assumed short-term or freelance roles offer a convenient solution to the running of large scale events. However, the gig economy is now itself being reshaped following legal challenges focusing on providing greater protection for those engaged in working arrangements that are a-typical. In 2017, 700 temporary workers were terminated by Glastonbury organisers after two days when they had reported promise of 2 weeks work, leaving them stranded having travelled from overseas to help with the Glastonbury clean up and left individuals out of pocket. This led to alleged mishandling of employment contracts and subsequently a tidal wave of negative PR for the organisers. 

So, as you plan your next big event, here’s what you need to consider about employment status; and why simply calling someone a “freelancer” doesn’t make it so.

From Headliner to Hospitality: Who’s Working Your Event?

Every successful event is powered by a complex team: from the riggers and sound engineers, to brand ambassadors, hospitality staff, and social media teams. Whether you’re a founder outsourcing your activation at a major event, or you’re hosting something yourself, you’ll likely be engaging a mix of:

  • Employees
  • Workers
  • Self-employed contractors

While the Government has proposed removing the worker status, for now, we retain the three. Employees have the most comprehensive employment rights, while workers have fewer (for example, they do not have protection from unfair dismissal). Self-employed contractors generally only have the rights contained within their agreements with their client.

Each status comes with different rights, responsibilities, and risks.

Why Getting It Wrong Isn’t an Option

It might seem harmless to take a “casual” approach for short-term or seasonal work. But misclassifying someone, intentionally or not, can result in serious consequences. And in an era of rising scrutiny, your event might be over in a weekend, but the consequences could last much longer.

Some of the most common pitfalls include:

  • Misuse of zero-hour contracts
    In 2017, the organisers of the Glastonbury Festival were accused of hiring 700 workers from across Europe on zero-hour contracts to act as litter pickers, cleaning the site after the festival had ended. The workers were expecting two weeks of paid employment. However, they were fired two days later, leaving hundreds stranded in the Somerset countryside and out of pocket.
  • Unpaid holiday pay and rest breaks
    Individuals are often required to work back-to-back 18-hour days, which could breach the legal minimum requirement of rest breaks prescribed by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
  • Health and safety breaches
    The performing arts union, Bectu, surveyed 100 music festival workers. The results were worrying; half of the people questioned reported feeling unsafe at work, and a third reported having experienced a risk to their physical safety.
  • Non-payment of tax and National Insurance
    A nightclub owner is due to be sentenced this year for deducting tax and National Insurance from employees’ salaries but failed to pass the money on to HMRC.
  • Employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal or unlawful deductions
    In March 2022, P&O Ferries sacked 800 seafarers without notice, replacing them with cheaper agency workers. Many of the affected employees filed employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The company admitted it knowingly broke the law by not consulting unions or employees, which is required under UK employment law.

It is important that organiser’s get employment status correct as:

  • There is implied obligation between employers and employees, such as the mutual duty of trust and confidence;
  • A number of core legal protections are only applicable to those classed as employees, such as unfair dismissal;
  • Only employees are covered by the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures;
  • The tax position of an individual depends on their employment status, as determined by HMRC.
  • Employers are vicariously liable for acts done by its employees in the course of their employment, and
  • There are different implications for handling personal data, under UK GDPR depending on an individuals employment status.

So how can you avoid these pitfalls?

5 Key Tests to Get Employment Status Right

If you organise one off, or short-term events,  you must remember employment status still applies and you cannot determine the nature of your relationship with the individuals you engage by simply putting a label on it. Proactive steps must be taken to assess the employment status of employees, workers, and self-employed contractors. To achieve this, it’s important to consider how the relationship operates on a day-to-day basis:

1. Control

The greater the company’s control over individuals, the more likely they are to be considered employees. Are you deciding when, where, and how they work? If so, they’re likely not self-employed.

2. Integration

The more integrated they are into the company, the more likely they are to be considered an employee. Are they part of your team, required to use your branding, attend meetings, and follow company policies and procedures?

3. Mutuality of Obligation

Are you obligated to provide work? Are they obligated to accept the work you offer? If so, this would indicate an employment status.

4. Personal Service

Is the individual required to perform the duties personally rather than having the right to send a substitute?  This is a characteristic typically associated with employment.

5. Financial Risk and Independence

The more financial risk an individual bears, the more it will indicate self-employed status. Are they using their own equipment, obtaining their own insurance, invoicing you, and handling their own tax?

To summarise, the more “yes” answers to the first four, and “no” to the last, the more likely you’re dealing with an employee or a worker and not a contractor.

So What Should You Do?

Assess the relationship honestly
Don’t rely on titles, look at how the role actually operates on a day to day basis. Use legal guidance or a checklist to help.

Put it in writing
Always issue the correct employment documentation which clearly reflects how the relationship operates in practice.

Provide a safe working environment
Think of rest breaks, access to toilets and water, and protection from excessive hours, these aren’t just “nice to haves”; they’re legal requirements. You have a duty to provide a safe working environment for all types of workers.

Budget for compliance
Proper contracts might cost more up front. But compare that to a tribunal claim, regulatory fine, HMRC fines and interest, and the reputational hit of being the next Glastonbury scandal.

The Encore: A Better Way to Power Events

In the post-pandemic world, festivals and live events face tighter margins than ever. But cutting corners on employment compliance is a false economy. The events industry depends on a passionate, skilled and often overworked workforce, treating them properly isn’t just the law, it’s good business.

If you’re a founder organising an event, outsourcing to an agency, or even hiring ad-hoc help for the summer season, take a moment to check your contracts. Because while you may not be the headline act, you’re responsible for the whole show.

Get in touch with Becci Collins if your employment contracts need reviewing.

Read the other articles in this edition here : The Fineprint – Edition 1 – July 2025 – Lawrence Stephens

 

 

 

 

 

How toxic masculinity can be harmful for businesses

Posted on: June 11th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses how toxic masculinity is increasingly infiltrating the workplace, with legal and cultural consequences for both employees and employers, in People Management. 

Emma’s article was published in People Management, 10 June 2025.

Toxic masculinity: a hidden cost to employers?

Following the huge success of recent Netflix drama Adolescence, the issue of toxic masculinity has been the subject of much debate. The prime minister has admitted to being worried about toxic behaviour on social media influencing young men, telling the BBC that the UK “may have a problem with boys and young men that we need to address”. Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate also recently aired his thoughts in a BBC lecture in which he said “toxic influencers… tricky young men”.

While discussions on this topic have so far focused on the impact of toxic masculinity generally, it is important to recognise the specific workplace challenges that are becoming more prevalent as a result of the corrosive impact of social media and misogynist influencers such as Andrew Tate.

Workplaces are increasingly reporting a subculture of negative behaviours rooted in out-of-date, and often harmful, masculine values. An overabundance of these traditional masculine norms can lead to behaviours including excessive aggression, emotional repression and a constant need to prove dominance. These behaviours can manifest in negative workplace practices; for example, a long-hours, ‘work first’ culture that prioritises work over personal or family life and individual wellbeing. Equally, overly competitive behaviour – such as a focus on winning at all costs, often at the expense of others – can have a negative impact on teamwork, collaboration and innovation. Diversity, inclusion, a healthy work-life balance and employee wellbeing also invariably tend to suffer. Instances of bullying may also increase in workplaces particularly prone to toxic masculinity.

These negative effects are being fuelled by the mandated scrapping of EDI programmes through a series of executive orders issued by President Trump. Across corporate America, EDI is now in sharp retreat with companies as diverse as IBM, Warner Bros, Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, McDonald’s and Amazon having scrapped, scaled back or renamed their EDI programmes.

Given that these are large, multinational companies, and many others like them have taken similar steps, the threat to EDI programmes in the UK is significant. While according to a recent survey by the Institute of Directors, 71 per cent of business leaders have no plans to alter their organisation’s approach to EDI following the scaling back of programmes in the US, that still leaves 29 per cent that might.

There are clearly other factors beyond Trump’s anti-EDI agenda affecting the UK’s position, not least the gender pay gap, which has remained stubbornly high. However, the negative effects of toxic masculinity on workplace culture should not be underestimated. As a consequence of the growth of toxic masculinity, businesses face increasing levels of risk, including the risk of legal claims by employees who have been subject to discrimination or harassment because of their sex. Fostering, or even just tolerating, a work environment that is hostile to women can violate employment law. Where successful, legal action against employers can result in costly settlements or awards of damages, as well as reputational damage to the organisation and a knock-on effect on employee morale.

Sensible organisations will heed warnings about toxic masculinity and take steps to mitigate these risks. These steps mostly come down to common sense and include having robust EDI policies, comprehensive training on appropriate workplace behaviours and a resolute commitment to challenging harmful workplace behaviours whenever they appear. However, where a workplace is already seeing significant negative consequences of allowing a toxic culture to persist, more drastic actions, such as disciplinary investigations, may be necessary. 

For further information on our employment services, please click here.

AI in Law: Emma Cocker Shares Expert Insights in City AM Feature

Posted on: May 15th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments in City AM on the future of AI within law firms, arguing that it can be a useful tool, however lawyers and employers must act cautiously as improper use can have serious legal implications. 

Emma’s comments were published in City AM, 15 May 2025, and can be found here.

“AI undoubtedly plays a huge role in the future of legal services. It will make them more accessible and affordable, which is a huge benefit, given that so many people and small businesses struggle to access legal services. It can also speed up output, with the automation of repetitive and time-consuming tasks helping lawyers to work more efficiently, which also translates to costs savings for clients.

“However AI must be used with caution. Remember that it should be used as a starting point and that the output is only ever as good as the input, which may be vulnerable to online misinformation. As such, AI content must always be reviewed for accuracy and subject to ultimate approval by a human being. We know that AI ‘hallucinates’ and we have already seen lawyers over relying on AI coming unstuck. As well as the professional embarrassment factor, AI could deskill junior lawyers who may not be practicing legal researching and drafting to the same degree as previous generations of lawyers. It may also contribute to a decline in the development of other key skills, such as critical and independent thinking.

“In authorising the first AI-driven law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority made it clear that lawyers relying on AI output will be ultimately responsible for the consequences and that professional standards must always be maintained to ensure public trust and confidence in the sector. Those who do use AI improperly may find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings by their employer and the regulator and in cases of ‘AI gone wrong’ there is scope for negligence claims by clients, as well as costs applications by opponents.”

For more information on our Employment services, please click here.

‘Gender critical’ belief discrimination – where are we now?

Posted on: April 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Four years ago, the concept of discrimination based on ‘gender critical’ beliefs was unheard of. However, the 2021 decision of Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors paved the way for protection under the Equality Act 2010 for individuals holding gender critical beliefs.  

Despite Forstater, there has been a slew of employment tribunal cases brought by individuals claiming their belief that sex is biological and immutable led their employers to subject them to less favourable treatment. These claimants worked in areas including the NHS, local government, charities, the education sector and even the legal profession. With trans rights supporters claiming that such beliefs are transphobic and hateful, many employers have been confused as to their obligations and fearful of ‘getting it wrong’.

Most recently, in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers it was held that ‘sex’ within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, reigniting tensions about the interplay between the rights of trans people and the rights of biological men and women. With the Supreme Court’s decision hot off the press, this article summarises some of the key cases and legal principles that have emerged in recent years, helping employers to be confident in their decisions about balancing the rights of all parties to be treated in a way compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and help them to ensure everyone enjoys dignity and respect at work.

Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors (2022)

Maya Forstater’s consulting contract with the Centre for Global Development was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men. She brought claims of discrimination, with the employment tribunal initially ruling against her. However the Employment Appeal Tribunal later found that her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they were “worthy of respect in a democratic society“. At a subsequent hearing, the tribunal concluded Ms Forstater had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs and she was awarded compensation of over £105,500 including for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages and interest.

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited Garden Court Chambers & Ors (2022)

Barrister Allison Bailey claimed she was discriminated against for her gender-critical views after Garden Court chambers concluded that two of her personal tweets, which included gender critical views, potentially breached her professional obligations as a barrister. Bailey had co-founded LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, which opposed the ‘trans extremism’ it said Stonewall promulgated. Ms Bailey complained to colleagues about Garden Chambers becoming a Stonewall Diversity Champion, saying that Stonewall was complicit in a campaign of intimidation of those who questioned gender self-identity. The tribunal found that Garden Court had discriminated against Ms Bailey and she was awarded £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, plus interest.

Fahmy v Arts Council England (2023)

Denise Fahmy attended an internal teams meeting where hostile comments were made about people who hold gender critical beliefs. This was in the context of a discussion about the award and removal of a grant to LGB Alliance. A petition was later circulated in which further hostile and intimidating comments were made, leading Ms Fahmy to raise a Dignity at Work complaint, which was not upheld. Leeds Employment Tribunal found in favour of Ms Fahmy, concluding that she had been harassed for her gender-critical beliefs, and shortly afterwards, the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Phoenix v Open University (2024)

Joanna Phoenix, a professor, co-signed a letter to the Sunday Times in 2019 in which she made her gender critical beliefs known. She, with others, then established the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group promoting research into sex and gender from a gender critical perspective. As a result, she was harassed and discriminated against by colleagues, including in one instance the Deputy Head of Department likening her to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table“. The employment tribunal found that her complaints of direct discrimination and harassment were well-founded and that she had been constructively unfairly (and wrongfully) dismissed. Shortly afterwards the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (2024)

Roz Adams worked as a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Ms Adams held gender critical beliefs and believed that victims of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. In 2021, the centre appointed a trans woman to the post of CEO. Ms Adams warned that giving ambiguous answers to victims who wanted to know the sex of their counsellor could mislead them or lead them to self-exclude from the service. The issue escalated when a colleague announced they were non-binary and changed their name to one that sounded male. Ms Adams asked her manager for clarity on how she should respond if service users asked if the colleague was male, which along with her observations about language used regarding gender critical people (including ‘terf’, bigot and fascist’) led to a deeply flawed disciplinary process against Ms Adams. She resigned, alleging constructive dismissal and discrimination. Delivering a scathing judgment, the tribunal concluded that Ms Adams had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed due to her gender-critical beliefs. Ms Adams was awarded compensation of £68,990 and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was ordered to publish a statement apologising.

Meade v Westminster City Counsel and Social Work England (2024)

Rachel Meade, a social worker, posted on a Facebook profile (that was set to private with approximately 40 friends) expressing her gender critical beliefs. One of Ms Meade’s colleagues complained to the regulator about these posts, alleging that they were transphobic and that Ms Meade had deliberately shared posts containing misinformation about the trans community. Following an investigation into the complaint, Ms Meade was told that there was a reasonable prospect that her Fitness to Practise would be found currently impaired because of her ‘discriminatory activity’ on Facebook. She was told that she could either accept the report and a sanction of a one-year warning or have her case referred to a hearing. She chose the former. Ms Meade’s immediate managers confirmed they had no concerns about her practice but she was subsequently suspended on charges of gross misconduct and ultimately issued with a final written warning. The tribunal found that Ms Meade had been harassed on account of her gender critical beliefs, awarding her over £58,000, including aggravated and exemplary damages, reflecting the extent of the wrongs committed by the Respondents.

Frances v Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (2025)

Ms Frances brought claims of constructive dismissal on the basis of her gender-critical belief and also on a separate philosophical belief in the integrity of the civil service. The claims were settled early, but this case was highly unusual in that there was no confidentiality around the settlement, including its high value (£116,000). It also resulted in public statements from two Whitehall permanent secretaries, committing their respective departments to significant redrawing of policies around sex and gender. This case helped to buck the previous trend of litigating gender critical belief cases until the bitter end, following settlement in the cases of Esses v The Metanoia Institute and the UK Council of Psychotherapy and Favaro v City, University of London.

Higgs v Farmor’s School (2025)

Kristie Higgs, pastoral administrator and work experience manager at a school, was dismissed for posts she made on her Facebook profile opposing the view that ‘gender is fluid and not binary’, contending that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A complaint was made by a parent, leading to MS Higgs’ suspension and eventual dismissal. Ms Higgs claimed direct discrimination and harassment. While her claims were initially dismissed on the basis that it was the manner of expression that had caused her dismissal, not her beliefs themselves, the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted her appeal and remitted the case back to the tribunal. Ms Higgs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ultimately ruled that Ms Higgs’ dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, emphasising that dismissing an employee merely for expressing a protected belief is unlawful unless the manner of expression is objectionable and the dismissal is a proportionate response.

What should employers be doing in light of these decisions?

It is clear that employers that conduct or condone discrimination against workers with gender critical beliefs are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an employment tribunal judgment. While this precedent is well established, the recent decision in For Women Scotland has once again brought to the fore the issue of competing protections under the Equality Act 2010. While there is a surfeit of misinformation circulating online that the Supreme Court has ‘removed’ or ‘weakened’ the rights of transgender individuals in favour of those who hold gender critical beliefs, this is incorrect. The law today is the same as it was before last week’s decision and discrimination against trans people for reasons relating to gender reassignment remains unlawful, as does discrimination against those holding gender critical beliefs. However, because of the misrepresentation of the law on this highly emotive topic, many organisations are confused and fearful. Nevertheless, businesses must take a step back from the online noise and focus on a common-sense approach that treats everyone with dignity and respect.

Employers ought to remember that inclusion is for everyone and that there is nothing discriminatory in recognising that the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment relate to groups that have different needs and vulnerabilities. Employers should avoid making statements that disagree with the Equality Act 2010 or the Supreme Court judgment, or that favours or prioritises particular groups. This may lead to claims of sex-based harassment and discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

It is possible to treat trans people with dignity and respect while also applying the Equality Act 2010 definition of sex, and remaining compliant with it. While it may be tempting to seek to avoid conflict, making all spaces ‘gender neutral’ is likely to garner complaints, as well as being in breach of workplace health and safety legislation. It may also be tempting to take situations on a case-by-case basis, but this is likely to lead to non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and could lead to employment tribunal claims by workers who expect to be able to access single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity.

It is recommended that employers review their policies and training to assess and act on the risk that what they currently have is unlawful. Policies not based on the Equality Act 2010’s definition of sex are likely to result in unlawful conduct for which employers may be sued in the employment tribunal. Clear language should always be used and the normal standards of workplace and professional conduct must be applied to everyone equally. Set clear expectations around conduct and do not tolerate offensive behaviour in the workplace, whatever the protected characteristic in question. Businesses may see a rise in grievances relating to this topic and while proper grievance policies should always be followed, employers should not entertain vexatious or unreasonable complaints and may need to consider invoking their disciplinary policy for repeat offenders.

If you would like support and advice on making certain that your policies and handbooks ensure your employees are protected, please contact a member of our Employment team.

Employment law insight: what were the BBC’s obligations during the Huw Edwards scandal?

Posted on: March 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The BBC have come under questioning regarding its handling of the Huw Edwards case in the wake of him pleading guilty to child sex offences on 31 July 2024. There is a particular focus on the period of Edwards’ suspension from July 2023, when he continued to receive his full pay of £475,000 per annum, and also received a pay rise of £40,000 during this time. We now know that the BBC were made aware of his arrest during November 2023. The underlying question here is whether his employer should have dismissed him at this point.

Putting aside the awful nature of his crimes, there is no getting away from the fact that, from an employment law perspective, the BBC had obligations towards Edwards until his resignation in April 2024.

Obligations during suspension

Once an employer is made aware of allegations of criminal activity and criminal charges relating to its employee, they are obligated to investigate to try and obtain as much information as possible.

Right to suspend

In most cases of gross misconduct (and more serious cases of simple misconduct), employers should consider suspending an employee pending the results of their investigation. Whilst suspension is by no means the default position, the ACAS code of Practice suggests suspension is acceptable if the employer reasonably believes it would be protecting any of the following:

  • the investigation: for example, if you’re concerned about someone damaging evidence or influencing witnesses;
  • the business: for example if there’s a genuine risk to your customers, property or business interests;
  • other staff; or
  • the person under investigation.

During the suspension, the employer will need to carefully consider decisions surrounding pay. Unless there is a clear contractual right to do so, the employer is not entitled to suspend a salaried employee without pay or contractual benefits.

In this case, if the BBC withheld or reduced Edward’s pay during his suspension, there would have been a risk of legal action by Edwards, although it is questionable whether Edwards would have wished to attract further media attention by instigating legal proceedings. In fact, there would still have been a risk of legal action, such as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal even if the contract allowed reduced or no pay during suspension.  

Would it have been fair to dismiss Edwards from November 2023, had he not resigned in April 2024?

Following the allegations, careful consideration ought to have been given to the pending disciplinary process and what action to take.

Prior to any dismissal, employers should consider the following:  

  • nature of the conduct: in cases of misconduct, consider whether actions or allegations relating to actions outside of work are sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action at work. Sometimes even cases that appear to be obvious misconduct affecting employment can lead to successful claims of unfair dismissal, such as in Walters v Asda Stores.
  • the evidence: when considering dismissal, the employer should endeavour to have as much information as possible prior to making any decision.
  • employee’s health: prior to any dismissal, the employer ought to consider whether there are any allegations or information to suggest ill-health on the part of the employee. If so, the employer ought to investigate the employee’s health. If the employee refuses to co-operate, it may be fair for the employer to dismiss.
  • the procedure: an employer must still follow a fair and reasonable procedure if an employee is accused of misconduct, including gross misconduct. What is fair and reasonable will vary from case to case, but there are certain minimum requirements, which ought to be followed in all cases. For example, employees have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or Trade Union representative at a disciplinary hearing.

In the case of Edwards, the complexity arises from the fact his criminal activity and convictions were unrelated to his work. Further, at the time of his arrest, the BBC claimed it did not have all the details surrounding the offences. It was also known that Edwards was hospitalized due to experiencing severe mental health issues which had worsened since the allegations were made. 

While criminal allegations or convictions alone may not justify disciplinary action or dismissal, there may still be grounds to dismiss. An employer may be able to establish a potentially fair reason for dismissal, if they can show there is misconduct sufficiently serious to justify dismissal for some other substantial reason. 

Employers may consider that an employee’s conduct (in this case criminal conduct outside of the workplace) is sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal on the basis that continuing to employ them would have a reputational impact. They would have to consider the nature of the offence and whether this will attract negative publicity. If so, they would need to consider reputational risk, as well as their health and safety obligations towards other staff, or service users. 

In the case of Edwards, given the nature of his offending, the reputational damage would have had a huge negative effect on the reputation of the BBC – a body that must be seen to uphold the highest standards. Had Edwards not resigned and the BBC continued to employ him, this would have exposed the BBC to disrepute, scandal and contempt. Edward’s link to the BBC could have caused sufficient damage to its reputation to affect the amount of licence revenue the BBC could generate for years to come.   

The BBC probably had all these considerations in mind when it decided not to dismiss Edwards. Edwards had not been found, or pled, guilty and the complex investigation was still ongoing. He was also hospitalised due to a mental health crisis. Failing to follow a fair and reasonable procedure, and disregarding his ill-health, could have exposed the BBC to liability for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, had Edwards not resigned in April 2024, the BBC would have had fair reason to dismiss him following his guilty plea.

When should an employer take action against the employee?

There are no hard and fast rules to apply when determining whether to go ahead with disciplinary proceedings when there is a criminal trial pending. The most important thing is for the employer to conduct its own investigations into the issues and to properly consider the options available in line with their requirements in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employers have discretion whether to postpone disciplinary action where the employee’s misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation and prosecution. Even in emotive cases such as this, an employer ought to be careful not to act precipitously. 

BBC’s obligations to other staff

Whistleblowers who gave evidence to the BBC internal inquiry into Huw Edwards have criticised the way it was handled. One staff member says they were sent flirtatious private messages by the presenter in 2023. They complained that they had not been kept informed about the progress of the inquiry. Another staff member claimed that Edwards sent suggestive messages alongside a picture of his hotel suite.

Such allegations may constitute whistleblowing, which affords the employee various protections from dismissal and detriment, on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure. Providing effective protection for whistleblowers is important for several reasons, including:

  • encouraging a speak-up culture;
  • internal risk control;
  • limiting reputational damage;
  • protecting staff morale; and
  • avoiding unnecessary litigation.

If an employee is dismissed or is subjected to detriment on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure, this can expose the employer to potential tribunal claims for automatically unfair dismissal or whistleblowing detriment. Importantly, financial compensation in respect of these claims is uncapped, so employer liability can be significant.

When someone blows the whistle, the employer should explain its procedures for making a disclosure and whether the whistleblower can expect to receive any feedback. Often a whistleblower expects to influence the action the employer might take, or expects to make a judgement on whether an issue has been resolved, but this will rarely be appropriate.  

It is in the employer’s best interests to deal with a whistleblowing disclosure promptly. This allows the employer to fully investigate, make any further necessary enquiries and determine any appropriate action.  

There are several things an employer should do when a whistleblowing disclosure is made. It is important to make sure that as an employer, you:

  • handle any whistleblowing complaint fairly and consistently;
  • follow any process your organisation has for whistleblowing; and
  • keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential. 

The Government’s Whistleblowing Code of Practice encourages clear and prompt communications between the whistleblower and the employer. They should provide feedback to whistleblowers, within the confines of their internal policies and procedures. This is vital so that whistleblowers understand how their disclosure has been handled and dealt with. Failing to do so may result in the whistleblower approaching other individuals or organisations to blow the whistle externally. Therefore, it is strongly advisable for an employer to have a policy which explains the benefits of making a disclosure, the process and how the disclosure will be dealt with.

Takeaways from this case

It is reasonable to say that this case is far more complex than it may have initially appeared. If you need further guidance in relation to employee misconduct, suspension or dismissal, or you need a whistleblowing or disciplinary policy, please speak to our specialist employment team.