Solutions for HR

21/05/2026

The maximum penalty for failing to follow collective redundancy consultation rules has just doubled.

Employers need to take note.

As the legislation from the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 2025 continues to roll out, one area of focus is further measures to ensure that the correct process for collective consultations is carried out by employers.

One of these changes has already been introduced as of 6th April 2026, with the maximum protective award for an employee increasing from 90 to 180 days' pay where the employer has failed to consult accordingly.

The collective consultation process requires that an employer carry out a strict consultation process prior to any dismissals taking place.

This applies to instances where there are at least 20 redundancies expected within an individual workplace within 90 days, with the minimum length of the consultation period depending on the specific number of employees involved.

For 20 to 99 redundancies within 90 days, there must be a minimum 30-day consultation period.

For 100 or more redundancies within 90 days, this increases to a minimum of 45 days.

Additional changes expected in 2027 will lower the threshold required for collective consultations further, and the total number of redundancies will no longer apply to an individual workplace, but the whole organisation.

The Government is still working out the type of threshold and threshold number, with consultations around this due to close on 21st May 2026.

With these changes, employers must follow the collective consultation process appropriately.

This includes reviewing current redundancy policies and procedures and adhering to collective and individual consultation processes.

And if redundancies are a possibility, commencing consultation at the early stages of the process is crucial.

For practical guidance on collective consultation and what these changes mean for your business, contact Solutions for HR today.

📞 0161 694 7050
✉ [email protected]
Subscribe to our newsletter for HR and employment law updates https://mailchi.mp/058beeda02f7/facebook

14/05/2026

From January 2027, an employee with six months' service can bring an unfair dismissal claim against your business.

That is not a future problem.

It applies to people already on your payroll.

A recent ACAS and YouGov survey asked businesses and employees which reforms from the Employment Rights Act 2025 will have the biggest impact on the workplace.

Here is what they said...

1. Statutory Sick Pay
The reform expected to have the biggest impact by both businesses (43%) and employees (36%) was the introduction of SSP from the first day of absence.

Previously, SSP was only eligible after the fourth qualifying and continuous day of illness.

Since the 6th of April 2026, SSP has been available from the first day of an employee's absence.

2. The six-month qualifying period
Businesses (31%) and employees (30%) agreed on the second-biggest reform impact: protection from unfair dismissal changing to a six-month qualifying period.

With effect from January 2027, the two-year qualifying period will be reduced to six months, meaning employees can bring an unfair dismissal claim much sooner.

While this is not being introduced until 2027, it will apply to existing employees.

This means that an employee with at least six months' service on the 1st January 2027 will gain protection from unfair dismissal automatically.

3. Paternity leave from day one and greater access to flexible working
The third reform was split between business leaders and staff.

Businesses rated the introduction of paternity leave from day one of employment as the third most significant reform (28%), while employees scored greater access to flexible working arrangements as their third biggest reform (28%).

For paternity leave, employees previously needed 26 weeks of continuous service before they were eligible.

With effect from the 6th April 2026, this has also become a day one right.

Additional measures are being introduced in 2027 around flexible working.

Where an employer intends to reject a flexible working request, they must be able to link this to at least one of the eight acceptable business reasons and explain why they believe their refusal is reasonable.

If you have questions about how the ERA 2025 reforms may affect your business, contact us for support with policies, procedures, and employment law compliance.

📞 0161 694 7050
✉ [email protected]
Subscribe to our newsletter for HR and employment law updates https://mailchi.mp/058beeda02f7/facebook

08/05/2026

A new enforcement body can now walk into your workplace, demand your records, and bring a tribunal claim on behalf of your employees.

Are you ready?

The Fair Work Agency (FWA) was launched in April 2026 as part of the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms.

It brings together existing bodies such as the HMRC, Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, the Gangmasters, and the Labour Abuse Authority.

The FWA acts as a point of contact for workers to enforce their rights.

They can inspect workplaces and enter company premises, require documentation and evidence from both companies and individuals, and are able to hold interviews.

They can also enforce statutory payments, recover underpayments, provide legal advice, and bring tribunal claims on behalf of employees who do not wish to do so themselves.

And if a claim brought forward by the FWA is successful, they will also be able to recover the costs directly from the company.

With this in mind, it is a simple reminder to ensure employment practices are watertight.

This includes maintaining comprehensive and accurate records, including a new requirement to keep records of leave entitlement (statutory and contractual) for up to six years and ensuring that all statutory payments are calculated correctly, that deductions are lawful and that staff are paid on time.

If you have questions about how the Fair Work Agency may affect your business, contact us for support with employment practices, recordkeeping, and compliance.

📞 0161 694 7050
✉ [email protected]
Subscribe to our newsletter for HR and employment law updates https://mailchi.mp/058beeda02f7/facebook

01/05/2026

Five ways day-one SSP will affect absence

Changes to SSP this month mean employers will pay more people for more absence, unless prevention policies keep pace, reports Dr Bernard Yew.

30/04/2026

“Recruitment Rewired”: what employers need to know about automated recruitment

When it Matters Most.

28/04/2026

Trade bodies urge ministers to rethink zero hours law change

Trade bodies in retail, hospitality and seasonal work have written to the government requesting more flexibility in its guaranteed hours plan

23/04/2026

Disability discrimination payout for failing to support...

A software developer with chronic hip pain and severe sleep disruption is awarded over £36,000 after a tribunal ruled her dismissal was disability discrimination.

While concerns were raised about the employee’s performance several months before her dismissal, they told their manager that the difficulty completing some tasks was partly linked to pain and sleep disruption caused by a medical condition.

Despite this, the employee was dismissed in September 2023 with notice, but without any prior performance improvement process or occupational health assessment.

The tribunal accepted that the individual’s medical condition met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.

They found that the dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from a disability.

The Company failed to implement any performance improvement process, failed to provide an occupational health review, and failed to assess whether any reasonable adjustments could help the employee improve their performance.

This might have included allowing the employee more time to complete tasks or offering additional support.

Where an employee identifies health issues that may be impacting their conduct or performance, employers should take professional medical advice to review whether there are any adjustments that could reasonably be put in place to counter the effect of any potential disability.

If you are managing performance concerns linked to health issues, contact us for support with occupational health referrals, reasonable adjustments, and fair dismissal processes.

📲 0161 694 7050
📧 [email protected]

📩 Subscribe to our newsletter for HR and employment law updates > https://mailchi.mp/058beeda02f7/facebook

22/04/2026

Council workers win £11k for harassment after outside-work flashing

Two council workers have won a harassment claim over a colleague exposing himself to them outside of work.

21/04/2026

FIFA World Cup 2026: Employers’ guide to workplace implications

How should employers plan for the 2026 FIFA World Cup? We provide some guidance on the implications for workplaces.

20/04/2026

Comments about pregnancy can cross the line.

Comments about pregnancy can amount to harassment related to s*x, even where they were intended as jokes...

The Employment Rights Act provides a further focus on s*xual harassment, with s*xual harassment becoming a ‘qualifying disclosure’ under whistleblowing law from the 6th April 2026, meaning protection from detriment and unfair dismissal for whistleblowers making a s*xual harassment disclosure.

In addition, from October 2026, employers will need to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent s*xual harassment.

The current law says ‘reasonable steps,’ so this is just firming up that duty to prevent.

Whilst the Equality Act 2010 does not cover pregnancy and maternity-related harassment, the case of Ms A Hope v Ola Electric UK Private Ltd shows how such claims can be brought as s*xual harassment.

Hope was a Lead Human Factors Designer at Ola Electric who raised claims of discrimination, unfair dismissal, and harassment related to s*x following comments made by male colleagues during Hope’s pregnancy.

After nearly a year with Ola Electric, Hope announced to her employer and colleagues that she was pregnant.

A month later, Hope had been expressing concerns to a male colleague (Edmund Willis) that her baby bump was not growing.

In reply, he joked that “the b**b fairy hasn’t been either”, which left Hope feeling insulted and objectified.

A few months later, another male employee (David Lippett) posted on the Ola Electric group chat, saying:

“Women say that giving birth is way more painful than a bloke getting kicked in the bo****ks. Here is proof that they are wrong. A year or so after giving birth, a woman will often say, ‘It’d be nice to have another baby. You never hear a bloke say ‘I wouldn’t mind another kick in the bo****ks’. Case closed.”

David followed up the message by saying that the comment made him think of Hope.

Several employees liked the message, including Hope’s line manager (David Rouse).

Hope replied with the following:

“Although suggesting child birth isn’t as bad may well be interpreted as indeed asking for a kick in the bo****ks…”

Lippett told the Tribunal that he had a good relationship with Hope and was only trying to be funny.

However, considering Hope’s anxiety about her pregnancy, the judge referred to this message as “crude” and acknowledged none of this would have likely seemed very funny to Hope.

Hope began her maternity leave in August 2023, before being made redundant in January 2024 after the project she was working on had closed, and Hope then raised claims to the Tribunal.

Although the claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal were unsuccessful, the Tribunal agreed that Hope had been subject to harassment related to s*x based on the comments made by Willis and Lippett, and the fact that Hope’s line manager had also agreed with Lippett’s comment.

This case emphasises the position of the Tribunals in relation to harassment claims.

Ultimately, it is not what the perpetrator intended, but the impact that it has on the victim that the Tribunal will take into account.

Subscribe to our newsletter > https://mailchi.mp/058beeda02f7/facebook for practical HR updates employers can apply quickly.

Contact us today
t: 0161 694 7050
e: [email protected]