Non-competition clauses in employment contracts are a contentious issue. They are clauses which survive the end of the employment relationship and restrict the ex-employee, for a period of time, from working for a competitive business or setting up in competition with their ex-employer.
These clauses will only be enforced by the Courts if they are narrowly drafted and go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Legitimate business interests include factors such as protecting confidential information and client relationships.
Harassment is a serious offence. If it is related to one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, then it can give rise to an employment tribunal claim and substantial financial awards. It can also be a criminal offence. Sometimes, conduct taking place at work satisfies not only the employment law definition of harassment but also the criminal standard.
Against this backdrop, the Telegraph has reported that a Metropolitan Police call centre manager was found guilty of harassment in the criminal courts after targeting a colleague with unwanted gifts and messages.
In the recent employment tribunal case of Robinson v Middlesex Learning Trust, a teacher received almost £140,000 compensation after her employer failed to take a sensitive approach to her sickness absence.
Ms Robinson was employed on a one year fixed-term contract to teach design and technology at the Trust. After only a few weeks in post, she went off ill with sciatica. She had an operation and was off for several months whilst she recovered. She came back to work for a short period of time before going off sick again, this time with migraines. It was accepted that she was a disabled person under Equality Act 2010. Her contract was not renewed at the end of her one-year fixed term. The reason given was a reduction in funding for design and technology teaching.
Discretionary bonus schemes can be a valuable tool for recognising performance and driving engagement, but they also present legal and practical risks if not carefully drafted. Employers need to strike a balance between retaining flexibility and providing enough clarity to avoid disputes over fairness, eligibility or entitlement.
A common question is whether to specify the factors taken into account when exercising discretion. Leaving discretion completely open gives employers maximum control, but it can also leave decisions more vulnerable to allegations of unfairness, discrimination, or bias. A middle ground is often more effective, for example, setting out that company, individual, and potentially team performance may all be considered when assessing bonus awards.
Constructive unfair dismissal is a strange beast. It is an unfair dismissal but there is no actual dismissal involved at all. It occurs when an employee resigns in response to their employer’s conduct. The employer’s conduct must be such that it amounts to a repudiatory breach, a breach going to the root of the contract. If it does, then the resignation is treated, in law, as a dismissal, and the employee can claim unfair dismissal.
One of the key requirements for constructive dismissal is that the employee must not have affirmed the employment contract and accepted the breach before resigning.
This is not something which is easy to assess, but tribunals look at factors such as the amount of time which elapses between the breach and the resignation and whether, in the intervening period, the employee conducted themselves in a way which indicated that they had accepted the breach.
The issue of affirmation was front and centre in the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Barry v Upper Thames Medical Group. Dr Barry was told by the Trust that she would not be paid sick pay. This was a breach of her employment contract. Six months later, she resigned. She claimed constructive dismissal, relying on this breach. The Trust argued that by delaying for six months between becoming aware of the breach and resigning, Dr Barry had affirmed the employment contract and accepted the breach.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not agree. Even though there had been a six-month delay, there had been no affirmation. The EAT pointed to the fact that Dr Barry didn’t work at all following the breach and actively disputed the breach throughout the six-month period. All of this pointed against her affirming her employment contract.
This case is a useful reminder to employers that a delay in resigning, in and of itself, does not mean that a breach of contract has been affirmed. If the employee continues to work ‘under protest’, then the breach may well continue. If an employer is faced with a similar situation, then simply sitting on the issue and hoping it will go away through the passage of time is unlikely to work.
Employers should engage with the employee, acknowledge mistakes, and attempt to reach a mediated agreement to move forward. Document all such discussions – especially if you might want to rely upon them as evidence of affirmation by the employee.
Biometric monitoring – tools that identify individuals through fingerprints, facial recognition, voice patterns or other biological traits – is becoming increasingly common in workplaces seeking efficient access control, timekeeping, or security. But the legal and ethical risks associated with biometrics are substantial. These technologies collect special category data, meaning they trigger the highest level of protection under the UK GDPR.
Employers considering biometrics need to understand both the benefits and the pitfalls before rolling out any system.
A prospective employer’s obligations under Equality Act 2010 kick in before they are even an employer. This is because job applicants are protected from discrimination under Equality Act 2010. It is important that employers are aware of this and that recruitment practices are not in any way discriminatory.
One key area in this regard is the question of health. All employers, if given the option, would want to recruit a healthy employee. But asking questions about health can give rise to the risk of a disability discrimination claim.
The general position under the Equality Act 2010 is clear: prospective employers are not allowed to ask questions about an applicant’s health prior to making a job offer.
Section 111 Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to instruct, cause or induce someone to discriminate against, harass or victimise another person, or to attempt to do so.
The Government has set out its proposednew statutory rates for statutory sick pay and family leave pay to apply from 6th April 2026.
Old Rate
New Rate
Statutory maternity pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory paternity pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory shared parental pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory adoption pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory parental bereavement pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory neonatal care leave pay
£187.18 per week
£194.32 per week
Statutory sick pay
£118.75 per week
£123.25 per week
The average gross weekly earnings required to qualify for the various forms of family leave pay is proposed to increase from £125.00 or more per week, to £129.00 or more per week from 6th April 2026.
These changes sit alongside the proposed changes to national minimum wage which, if approved, will take effect from 1st April 2026:
Category
Rate
Aged 21 and above
£12.71 per hour
Aged 18-20
£10.85 per hour
Aged under 18 (but above compulsory school leaving age)
£8.00 per hour
Apprentices aged under 19
£8.00 per hour
Apprentices aged 19 or over but in the first year of their apprenticeship
After months of parliamentary debate, the Employment Rights Bill has finally cleared the House of Lords and gained Royal Assent on 18th December 2025. It has now become the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) – a landmark reform that will reshape UK employment law over the coming years.
While many of the changes will not take effect immediately, employers should now be clear on the direction of travel. The focus should shift from what might happen to how and when to prepare.
The two changes employers are watching closely
Two late amendments made during the Bill’s final passage are particularly significant.
First, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will reduce from two years to six months, rather than being removed entirely. This change is expected to take effect from January 2027.
Second, and potentially more impactful, the compensation cap for unfair dismissal — currently the lower of one year’s salary or £118,223 — is expected to be abolished, subject to the Government completing and publishing an Impact Assessment. If confirmed, this will substantially increase litigation risk and exposure for employers.
A phased introduction
ERA 2025 will be implemented gradually under a government roadmap.
The only immediate change following Royal Assent has been the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.
Further industrial relations reforms will follow two months later, including simplified industrial action ballots and notices, stronger protection against dismissal during strikes, and the repeal of much of the Trade Union Act 2016.
From April 2026, employers will start to see more practical, day-to-day changes, such as:
Day-one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave
Reformed Statutory Sick Pay (no waiting days or lower earnings limit)
Expanded whistleblowing protection, including sexual harassment complaints
Higher penalties for collective redundancy failures
Additional reforms are planned for October 2026, including tighter controls on fire-and-rehire practices, stronger rules on tips, expanded trade union rights, and a new duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment.
Beyond that, 2027 is expected to bring the aforementioned unfair dismissal changes, reforms covering flexible working, bereavement leave, protections for pregnant workers, restrictions on zero-hours arrangements, and regulation of umbrella companies
What should employers be doing now?
For unionised employers, the priority is understanding the imminent changes to industrial action rules and reassessing risk and response planning.
For non-unionised workplaces, preparation should focus on:
Reviewing contracts, variation clauses and probationary provisions
Strengthening probationary processes ahead of the six-month unfair dismissal threshold
Training managers on upcoming rights and obligations
Planning policy updates for family leave, sickness absence and harassment
Auditing payroll and benefits systems in light of SSP reform
The takeaway
ERA 2025 is not a single moment of change but a rolling programme of reform. Employers that start planning early – rather than waiting for implementation dates – will be best placed to manage risk, cost and disruption as the new framework takes shape.
| 
