AskAmanda

24/08/2026

The next changes to employment law under the game-changing are due on:

⚠️tomorrow - 25 August 2026 - electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots, making it easier for employees to vote on industrial action and other measures, and unions to administer ballots
⚠️1 October 2026 - the time limit for bringing an employment tribunal claim increases from 3 months to 6 months
⚠️30 October 2026 - employers become legally obliged to inform their workers of the right to join a union; new access rights come into force giving unions increased chances of accessing employers (regardless of whether they already recognise a union), which I believe will be the precursor to union recognition requests; enhanced rights for employees against suffering detriment for taking industrial action are introduced as well as enhanced protections for union reps; employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent s*xual harassment in the workplace and not to permit s*xual harassment by 3rd parties;
⚠️By 31 October 2026 - reintroduction of the two tier code in public procurement, to ensure that outsourced private sector employees are offered no less favourable terms and conditions to employees transferred from the public sector in scenarios

More changes will follow by the end of the year and into 2027, and the Act has already implemented a raft of changes which took effect in December 2025 and February and April 2026.

Navigating the changes and their impact on the workplace is not easy. If you’re an employer and wish to have a confidential chat about what to do so that your business is compliant and you can anticipate and manage future risks, please do get in touch.

26/05/2026

The CEO of software company Bolt has caused an outcry (at least in HR circles!) with his comments about firing his entire HR team because they were "creating problems that didn't exist". But all is not what it seems with the statements made by Ryan Breslow - in fact, the company had to drastically reduce in size to survive, had been through several rounds of redundancies, and is now much smaller than it was before so of course the requirements for HR are now vastly different. He also hasn't fired his entire HR team...

I joined live TV news this weekend to debate the comments here: https://astralishr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GB-News-interview-230526-SD-480p.mp4

18/03/2026

In a new Employment Tribunal decision this week, Nestle has been found liable for after its employee, Mr Billings, was found to have been va**ng in a toilet at the factory where he worked.

Mr Billings claimed disability discrimination in addition to unfair dismissal but did not win that element of the claim.

The judgement turned on the fact that the disciplinary manager had cited a CCTV recording clearly showing Mr Billings va**ng, the health and safety issues that that caused, and the fact that he did not believe Mr Billings when he said that he did not v**e, as reasons for his dismissal. However, during cross examination the disciplinary manager admitted that, had Mr Billings apologised for va**ng, he would have kept his job. Therefore, the real reason for the dismissal was not a loss of trust and confidence or a health and safety issue, but Mr Billings’ failure to apologise. The tribunal decided that a failure to apologise or admit a mistake did not constitute misconduct.

Mr Billings also relied on another disciplinary case that took place shortly before his, that of a colleague who stored a bag of clothing in an area that contained a fire hose. That employee had apologised and admitted their mistake, and consequently avoided dismissal.

This case makes it very clear that employers must be consistent when dismissing employees for gross misconduct. Similar examples and the approach taken in those are very relevant to whether a dismissal will be fair in the circumstances, as is the real reason for the dismissal. Employers should keep to the grounds cited as the reason for convening the disciplinary meeting if they decide to dismiss the employee as a result. Lack of remorse is still a factor in whether it is reasonable to dismiss an employee, but it was not sufficient in this case because other reasons had first been cited which were not then relied upon to dismiss.

I am seeing a sharp increase in employees bringing , and yet claims are sometimes taking in excess of 2 years to come to a hearing. The availability of tools is adding to the ability of employees to raise detailed grievances and issue claims asserting their rights, which employers cannot ignore. If you are an empoyer facing claims against your business, or need support with managing and , do get in touch for a confidential chat.

Employment Tribunal decision.

17/12/2025

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of hosting an insightful panel discussion at C**t Technology Services with Julie Williams of Lighting Fires Executive Coaching and Joe Jones of Refreshing Recruitment on the power of personal brand at work.

Aligned with C**t's 'Connecting with Purpose' strategy, we explored what a personal brand is and why you need one, how to build a personal brand that is authentic and unique to you, and the impact has on how you position yourself to progress your career.

If you would like to discuss holding a similar event for your business, in person or online, do get in touch for a confidential conversation.

**t

28/11/2025

After a fanfare for its initial introduction, the Employment Rights Bill has been quietly making its way through Parliament.

The Government has issued an update on progress of the Bill, following further discussions with unions and employers, which confirms that:

- the current 2 year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will not be scrapped altogether but instead, it will be reduced to 6 months. So employees will need a minimum of 6 months’ continuous service to issue such a claim
- the existing day 1 right to bring discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal claims (only certain dismissals are deemed automatically unfair, eg dismissals for blowing the whistle) will not change
- the cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be lifted (it is currently the lower of one year’s gross pay or £118,223)

I have seen an uptick in discrimination claims accompanying unfair dismissal claims. Whether this is because it is now more difficult to secure a new job in the current market, or this is simply a way to increase compensation beyond the unfair dismissal cap, remains to be seen. Lifting the cap could change this approach for claimants.

More here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-update-on-the-employment-rights-bill

Agreement reached with key stakeholders on the unfair dismissal elements of the Employment Rights Bill.

31/10/2025

Come and join us at this wonderful charity The Mission to Seafarers

Are you an experienced Board leader with knowledge of the maritime sector? We seek a new Chair of the Board to lead our Board of Trustees.

Our new Chair will lead an engaged and high-calibre Board, support our Secretary General, and represent the Mission across the maritime and welfare sectors.

Candidates should demonstrate proven governance and Board leadership experience and a credible network within the maritime community.

Apply now: http://bit.ly/4nz5MX8
Deadline: Friday, 28 November 2025

11/09/2025

A new case has caused quite a stir in the media this week, but the headlines aren’t all they seem. It was widely reported that the case means that calling your boss a “d***head” is not a sackable offence. However, the concerned won her case more for the way the handled the dismissal than because of what she said.

Kerrie Herbert was dismissed by Main Group for calling her manager and another director “d***heads” during a heated argument that began when she thought documents about costs on her boss’s desk meant that her job was at risk. Ms Herbert became very upset and hurled the insult in the heat of the moment. In response her manager told her she was fired and to “f*** off”.

Under Ms Herbert’s employment contract, she could be dismissed for using abusive language if she had first been given a prior warning. The employer claimed it had dismissed Ms Herbert for poor performance but it was found that she was immediately dismissed for using the insult and that the employer had failed to follow a proper procedure in doing so.

When dismissing employees immediately (for ), it is important that the conduct in question is serious enough to constitute a repudiatory . This is a breach by the employee of the employment contract that is so serious that it entitles the employer to treat the contract as immediately at an end. Here, the tribunal decided that the context of a heat of the moment argument meant that the insult was not serious enough to be a repudiatory breach. The tribunal explained that a finding of gross misconduct does not mean that dismissal is always appropriate. It depends on any mitigating circumstances - the fact that the insult was used in the heat of the moment was sufficient mitigation not to dismiss.

Ms Herbert was awarded £30K which included compensation for unfair dismissal, breach of contract (failure to give notice or pay notice pay) and, unusually for tribunal cases, her legal costs. This is because the employer was found to have tried to frustrate the process by claiming it was insolvent and could not pay, when its directors were still actively listed with Companies House. It appears that the employer sought to dissolve the employing company and continue to trade via a new one to avoid liability for the compensation awarded.

The moral of the story for employers? Follow your own procedures before dismissing any employee (even for gross misconduct), make your procedures entirely non-contractual so that you have flexibility to adapt them to the situation, and don’t try to avoid liability by setting up a new company instead (as the tribunal will see straight through that corporate veil). And finally, don’t believe everything you read in the press.

If you’re an employer in need of advice to manage workplace conflict, or you would like to ensure your procedures are fit for purpose, do get touch for a confidential chat.

18/07/2025

26/04/2025

Following last week’s Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, the has issued interim guidance on the impact of the ruling on workplaces amongst other spaces. The guidance is interim while the EHRC updates its Code of Practice.

For workplaces, it is important to ensure that there are sufficient single s*x toilet, shower and changing facilities where needed. Where possible, mixed s*x facilities with lockable doors should be provided in addition to single s*x facilities so that there is a space for everyone, and trans people still have a space available for their use.

I have been reviewing workplace facilities with my employer clients since the ruling was published and advising on changes to designation of facilities where needed as a result, importantly to ensure that they remain inclusive whilst respecting individual rights.

The EHRC interim guidance can be found here - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

If you would like to discuss how your workplace may need to change or would like to review your equality policies following the ruling, do get in touch for a confidential discussion.

News An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment Published: 25 April 2025 Table of contents Related information EHRC statement on Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers Download PDF Following the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Sco...

19/04/2025

Following my post earlier in the week about the landmark Supreme Court decision on the definition of “woman” and “s*x” under the , the Equality & Human Rights Commission has released a statement on the decision which employers should read here: EHRC statement on Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers | EHRC

As the regulator for the Equality Act, the EHRC will now update its Code of Practice to take into account the ruling, and aims to present the new Code to Parliament before the summer recess.

Employers should review their equality policies and practices in light of the decision and keep a watching brief on the updated Code. For confidential advice on what to consider and how to approach this sensitive topic, do get in touch.

The landmark ruling could have major implications for how s*x-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.