Government accepts Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for Minimum Wage
The Government has accepted the Low Pay Commission’s (LPC’s) recommendations for the rates of the National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW) to apply from April 2025. The figures are the first produced by the LPC since its remit was altered to take account of the cost of living, including expected trends in inflation up to March 2026.
The following rates apply from 1 April 2025:
| Applies to | Old rate | New rate |
National Living Wage | Workers aged 21 and over | £11.44 per hour | £12.21 per hour |
National Minimum Wage | Workers aged 18 to 20 | £8.60 per hour | £10.00 per hour |
National Minimum Wage | Workers aged 16 and 17 | £6.40 per hour | £7.55 per hour |
Apprentice rate | Apprentices | £6.40 per hour | £7.55 per hour |
Accommodation offset | Workers who are provided with accommodation by their employers | £9.99 per day | £10.66 per day |
The Government aims to align the NMW (payable to 18–20-year-olds) and NLW (payable to workers aged 21 and above) over time, creating a single adult wage rate. The increases this year are substantial. This is a big hit for employers – especially when viewed alongside the other payroll changes made in the Autumn budget. From April 2025, the rate of employer’s NI contributions (NICs) will increase by 1.2 percentage points to 15%, and employers will start to pay NICs on employees’ earnings from £5,000, instead of the current £9,100 threshold.
Employees on social media: top tips for employers
Social media can cause all sorts of workplace issues. A Facebook post might upset a colleague, a negative post might be made about the business itself, or poor online behaviour could impact business reputation. Employers need to be ready to act to minimise the impact of their employees’ online behavour in the workplace.
Banning employees from having any presence on social media, although likely to be effective, is never going to fly. Not only would this be an unsupportable constriction on freedom of expression, but it would probably lead to a mass exodus – no one wants a job that much! So, what can employers do? Here are our top tips:
- Review disciplinary and social media policies to clarify expectations and potential sanctions around social media use.
- To protect communications from deletion, make sure your policy requires any disappearing messages functions to be turned off.
- Train employees on online conduct to prevent issues from arising.
- Take a case-by-case approach, investigating all incidents thoroughly.
- Avoid overreacting to social media posts; consider context and alternative sanctions before deciding on dismissal.
- Always follow a fair procedure, giving employees an opportunity to explain their actions and carefully evaluating if dismissal is the only option.
- Be cautious if the post reflects a ‘manifestation of a protected belief’ to avoid potential discrimination risks. Where these manifestations might be offensive to other employees, there is a balance to be struck between the human right to freedom of religion/expression, and the right of the employer to take action over behaviour which could upset colleagues, and/or impact on business reputation. A failure to strike the balance correctly could risk not just unfair dismissal claims, but also discrimination claims. For example, in Forstater v CGD, the tribunal found in favour of a researcher dismissed for expressing gender-critical views, ruling her posts were a manifestation of a core belief. The tribunal awarded her over £100,000.
Driver using black cab app found not to be a worker
In UK employment law, individuals fall into one of three categories: employee, worker, or self-employed. Workers have certain rights, such as holiday pay, but are not as protected as employees. Determining employment status often involves assessing whether someone is in business on their own account or working under a contract for another party.
The ‘gig economy’, characterised by app-based, flexible work arrangements, has seen extensive litigation over employment status. In Uber v Aslam, the Supreme Court determined that Uber drivers were workers rather than self-employed, granting them additional rights. However, a recent case, Johnson v GT Gettaxi, illustrates that not all app-based drivers qualify as workers.
The Respondent operated an app connecting passengers with black cab drivers. The Claimant, a licensed black cab driver, used the app from 2015 to 2017 and claimed worker status after his 2020 application to rejoin was refused. Both the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found he was not a worker but self-employed.
Key factors in this decision included:
- The Respondent did not penalise drivers for rejecting rides.
- Drivers could choose routes freely, unlike in Uber, where specific routes were required.
- Drivers could make independent arrangements with passengers and use other apps or traditional black cab methods to generate income.
Holiday pay underpayments: Gaps over three months won’t break a series
Employees who experience underpayments can bring claims for unlawful deductions from wages to the ET. These claims must begin (via ACAS early conciliation) within three months less one day of the last deduction. If the underpayments are part of a ‘series’ of deductions, the claim may cover earlier payments, subject to a two-year backstop.
Historically, Bear Scotland v Fulton established that gaps over three months between holiday pay underpayments broke a series. However, the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew overturned this, holding that gaps over three months do not automatically disrupt a series of deductions.
In the recent case of Deksne v Ambitions Ltd, the employer conceded incorrect holiday pay calculations, but the ET initially ruled the claim out of time because gaps between deductions exceeded three months. The EAT overturned this decision, confirming that gaps between deductions were irrelevant. Instead, whether deductions form a series depends on factors such as their similarity, frequency, size, impact, and what links them.
The EAT held that all holiday pay underpayments calculated in the same way were part of a series, allowing claims back to the two-year limit.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Claims for historic holiday pay underpayments remain a risk. Correcting payments will not immediately “break the chain,” and three-month gaps between underpayments no longer matter. Employers must ensure holiday pay is calculated correctly to avoid exposure to claims.
Workplace Challenges in Winter Weather
Winter weather in the UK often brings disruption to roads, transport and schools, affecting workplaces. Here’s a brief guide for HR to address common issues:
- Commuting to work
While employers aren’t legally responsible for employees’ commutes, forcing travel in hazardous conditions could breach the implied duty of trust, risking constructive dismissal claims. Employers should prioritise safety with options like remote work, flexible hours, or holiday leave. - Workplace temperature
The Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require a ‘reasonable’ temperature, ideally 16°C (13°C for physical work). Employers should monitor conditions, relax uniform policies, and provide suitable heating to maintain comfort. - Workplace closures
If a workplace closes due to severe weather, employees ready to work should generally be paid unless contracts specify otherwise. Employers can consider options like remote work or lay-offs (if contracts allow). Employees who are laid-off receive statutory guarantee pay (£38 per day) rather than full pay. - School closures
Employees needing to care for children during short term school closures are entitled to unpaid time off under the right to time off for dependants. Some employers offer this as a paid benefit, so policies should be checked. - Unable to get to work
If employees can’t reach work due to weather, remote work or suggesting that employees take the day as holiday may be viable solutions. Whether it would be lawful to deduct from pay if an employee is unable to get to work owing to bad weather is unclear. Arguably, they are not ‘able’ to work so aren’t entitled to pay, but there is case law support for the fact that, if the reason an employee can’t work is an ‘unavoidable impediment’, then they shouldn’t have their wages docked. It is not known if bad weather would be regarded as an ‘unavoidable impediment’.
An Adverse Weather Policy can be used to clarify the business approach, ensuring clear communication and proactive planning to manage disruptions smoothly.
TUPE: What’s it all about?
With a new Government focusing on growth, mergers and acquisitions will be on the rise and, odds are, we will be hearing a lot more about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (more commonly referred to as ‘TUPE’) in the coming months and years. But what is TUPE? Here is our ‘pocket guide’:
- TUPE transfers can occur in two ways: (1) when a business, or part of a business, is transferred from one owner to another (business transfer); and (2) when a service stops being carried out by one entity and starts being carried out by another (service provision change).
- In each of these cases, the automatic transfer principle means that the contracts of employment of employees assigned to the transferring business (or service) will be transferred from the previous owner/service provider to the new owner/service provider. All liabilities up to the point of transfer will also, generally, transfer to the new owner/service provide.
- Employees are usually entitled to retain the same terms and conditions that they had before the transfer.
- The outgoing employer must provide the incoming employer with certain information, called the ‘Employee Liability Information’ before any transfer.
- There is an obligation to inform and consult with employees prior to any TUPE transfer. The fact of the transfer, the reasons for it and any ‘measures’ envisaged in connection with the transfer must be shared. ‘Measures’ include any changes which the new employer proposes to make (for example, redundancies).
- Dismissals by reason of a TUPE transfer will be automatically unfair unless they are for an economic, technical or organisational reason, entailing changes in the workforce. Employees must have 2 years’ service to bring a claim.
5 things all employers need to know about withdrawing a job offer
The first formal stage in the employment relationship is generally the making of an offer of employment by the prospective employer. But what happens if, having made the offer, the employer decides that they want to withdraw it? Here are 5 things all employers need to know:
- If you want to withdraw a job offer and no contract of employment has yet been formed, then you do not have to give notice. You can simply notify the applicant that the offer is withdrawn. Whether or not a contract of employment has been formed depends on whether the applicant has accepted the offer and whether any conditions to which the offer was made subject have been met.
- It is possible to make job offers conditional on certain matters being satisfied. Conditions could include the provision of satisfactory references and evidence of right to work. A binding contract is only created once the conditions are satisfied.
- If a contract of employment has been formed, then withdrawing it will amount to a breach of contract. You will need to pay the employee in lieu of any notice period stipulated in the contract to avoid a breach of contract claim. To limit the impact of having to pay notice in such circumstances, it is a good idea for the contract to stipulate a short notice period at the start of employment in the probationary period provisions.
- Once an employment contract is formed, automatic unfair dismissal protection applies. The withdrawal of the offer will be a de facto dismissal. If the applicant believes that the job was withdrawn because of a reason such as whistleblowing or pregnancy, to which automatic unfair dismissal rights apply, then the employer could be at risk of an automatic unfair dismissal claim. For this reason, it is important to clearly document the reason for the withdrawal of any job offer.
- Protection from discrimination arises from the point that someone applies for a job with you. It follows that any decision to withdraw a job offer risks an allegation that the withdrawal was in some way discriminatory. This happened in the recent case of Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, when a job offer was withdrawn because of the applicant’s protected belief.
And finally, the wholesale and delivery business, Booker, recently discovered the perils of deciding to take a stand on a specific incidence of workplace behaviour when your whole workforce behaves badly. In the recent case of Ogden v Booker Limited, Booker dismissed Mr Ogden for referring to a colleague as a “f**king mong”. The tribunal found that Mr Ogden had made this comment but, nevertheless, had been unfairly dismissed. In the circumstances, the comment was no worse than what others said in the workplace. The tribunal said that Mr Ogden had been “left without a chair when the music stopped”. The office he worked in was a “free-for-all”. The tribunal held that “this was a dysfunctional and seemingly toxic office, with many participants in this unprofessional behaviour including [Mr Ogden] and [his] victim”. Booker should have taken this into account when investigating the allegation against Mr Ogden. It was relevant to the fairness of dismissal as the sanction. This case serves as a reminder to employers that workplace standards must be consistently applied. Inconsistency risks singling out employees unfairly, as was the case for Mr Ogden.