Recent proposed amendments to the Employment Rights Bill includes sweeping reforms to the UK’s whistleblowing regimen. While these proposals are not yet backed by the government and are therefore unlikely to pass, they do offer significant changes, which if passed, would have meaningful implications.
The Employment Rights Bill continues to evolve, with several recent amendments proposed. While these changes are not backed by the government and are therefore unlikely to pass, they reflect the ongoing debate around workers’ rights and employer obligations. The key proposed amendments in respect of Zero Hour Contracts include:
Big changes are on the horizon for UK employment law. The new Employment Rights Bill poses a major shift in how unfair dismissal rights are applied. Here’s what you need to know:
The Employment Rights Bill is shaping up to be one of the most significant reforms in decades. A key change is within clause 26, which in its original form, would ban employers from dismissing staff who refuse to accept variations to their employment contracts. But recent proposed amendments suggest a more flexible approach may be on the horizon.
A new clause in the Employment Rights Bill has been proposed, which could mark a major shift in how employers manage allegations of harassment and discrimination.
The long-running case of Higgs v Farmor’s School appears to have come to an end, after the Supreme Court last month refused permission to appeal. This means that the current legal position is as set out in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case from earlier this year.
A recent tribunal ruling against high-street retailer Wilko serves as a costly reminder that even technical breaches of collective consultation law can carry a high price. Following its 2023 collapse, Wilko was found to have failed in its legal duty to properly consult with staff ahead of making large-scale redundancies. The result? Protective awards worth around £2 million across its former workforce.
Staying awake at work is one of the most fundamental requirements of almost every job. However, the recent case of Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd serves as a reminder to employers that they should not jump to a conclusion that being asleep at work always warrants dismissal. Context must always be taken into account. In this case, Mr Okoro was a CCTV controller.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 lists redundancy as a potentially fair reason for dismissal. But the existence of a genuine redundancy situation or a sound selection process doesn’t guarantee a fair dismissal. Employers also have a duty to explore alternatives – especially the possibility of alternative employment. Too often, this part of the process becomes a ‘tick box’ exercise: pointing to a vacancies list and leaving the rest to the employee. A recent case highlights how this approach could render an otherwise fair redundancy dismissal, unfair.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. These adjustments aim to remove or reduce disadvantages caused by a disability, and can include changes to the workplace, providing assistive equipment, or adapting how tasks are carried out. The goal is to enable disabled employees to access, stay in, and thrive in work.