December 2025

Government drops ‘day one’ unfair dismissal pledge

The Government has confirmed that it is abandoning its original plan to make unfair dismissal a day-one right. Instead, ministers now intend to reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months—a major policy shift designed to break parliamentary deadlock and keep the Employment Rights Bill on track for Royal Assent.

What was originally proposed?

Ahead of the 2024 general election, Labour committed to introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights. This proposal appeared in the draft Employment Rights Bill published in October 2024, alongside a suggested ‘initial period of employment’—expected to last nine months—during which a lighter-touch process could be used for dismissals (other than redundancy).

Why the change?

The House of Lords repeatedly rejected the day-one provisions. To avoid further delay, the Government has now adopted a compromise: a six-month qualifying period. It has also announced that the qualifying period will no longer be alterable via statutory instrument. Any future change will instead require primary legislation, meaning the six-month threshold is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future.

The compensation cap question

In an unexpected development, the Government also stated that “the compensation cap will be lifted”. Although details are scarce, it appears unlikely that unfair dismissal compensation will become entirely uncapped. A more realistic outcome is the removal of the 52-week pay cap while retaining the existing upper monetary limit (£118,223). If this is correct, lower-paid employees stand to gain most in potential awards.

What does this mean for HR?

While nothing will change immediately – current timelines still point to implementation in 2027 – HR teams should start preparing for the new regime:

Review probation processes. A six-month qualifying period means decisions on performance, conduct and fit must be made early. Policies should be refined so managers are prompted to act well before the six-month point.
Build in timing safeguards. Allow flexibility in review schedules to avoid eligibility being reached due to rearranged meetings or delays.
Consider the ‘statutory week’. A dismissal without notice adds one statutory week to service; an intended pre-six-month dismissal could unintentionally cross the threshold.
Prepare for higher-value claims. If the 52-week cap goes, tribunals may award significantly more to lower earners. Early evidence around mitigation will be essential.

The shift away from day-one rights offers employers breathing space – but the move to a six-month threshold still represents a substantial change requiring early planning.

Government announces minimum wage rises for 2026

The government has announced the following increases to the national minimum wage rates, to take effect on 1^st April 2026.

21 and over – from £12.21 to £12.71ph
18-20 – from £10 to £10.85ph
16-17 and apprentices – from £7.55 to £8ph

These increases will require HR teams to review pay structures and budgets, particularly where rises may create pressure on differentials and compression between pay bands.

HR and payroll systems need to be ready to react – companies that undergo a compliance check from HMRC can be named and shamed on a published list if they are found to have breached. The list shows the number of employees affected as well as the total underpayment found by HMRC. These underpayments can also be accompanied by a fine for 200% of their value.

Acas Early Conciliation period extended: What HR needs to know

From 1 December 2025, the Acas Early Conciliation period has doubled from six weeks to twelve. HR professionals should understand what this means for managing disputes and preparing for potential tribunal claims.

What is early conciliation?

Early conciliation is the process where Acas helps employers and employees try to resolve workplace disputes before a claim is issued in the employment tribunal. Employees must notify Acas before bringing most claims, including unfair dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing.

Contacting Acas is compulsory, but taking part in discussions is voluntary for both sides. If both parties agree, Acas will try to help them reach a settlement during the conciliation period. This period is now up to twelve weeks for notifications made on or after 1 December 2025.

Why has the period been extended?

The system has been struggling under workload pressures, with reports that conciliators often cannot make meaningful contact within six weeks. Extending the period gives more time for settlement discussions, which should reduce the number of claims issued and ease pressure on the already stretched tribunal system.

What does this mean in practice for HR?

The change could benefit employers by providing:

more time to resolve disputes without litigation.
reduced legal costs and conflict.
less escalation and entrenched positions.

However, there is a potential downside. When combined with proposals to extend tribunal claim time limits to six months under the Employment Rights Bill, some claims may not be issued until nine months after the events took place. This increases the risk of fading memories and missing evidence.

What should HR do now?

Gather evidence and witness accounts early – do not wait for the conciliation period to end
Keep clear records of decisions and discussions
Consider proactively engaging in conciliation where appropriate

Longer conciliation periods may offer more opportunities to resolve disputes constructively, but only if HR teams remain proactive in managing information and risk from the outset.

Court of Appeal confirms wider whistleblowing rights: what HR needs to know

A recent Court of Appeal decision has significant implications for whistleblowing claims. It confirms that employees can, in some circumstances, bring claims not only against their employer, but also against individual managers or colleagues involved in their dismissal.

Whistleblowing claims – the basics

Whistleblowers have two main types of legal protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996:

Automatic unfair dismissal (s103A) – where the reason, or main reason, for dismissal is whistleblowing. This claim can only be brought against the employer.
Detriment (s47B) – where an employee suffers detrimental treatment because they blew the whistle. These claims can be brought against the employer and against individual co-workers or agents. Employers can also be held vicariously liable for those individuals’ actions.

Detriment claims have advantages for employees: the legal test is easier to meet (the treatment only needs to be materially influenced by whistleblowing), and compensation can include injury to feelings.

The issue

Historically, the law suggested that employees could not bring a detriment claim where the detriment complained of was dismissal, because dismissal was already covered under s103A. This came from wording in s47B(2), which appears to block detriment claims based on the act of dismissal.

However, employees tried to argue that the act of dismissal by a manager or decision-maker was itself a detriment caused by a co-worker for which the employer could be held vicariously responsible – allowing them to bring a detriment claim for the act of dismissal alongside an unfair dismissal claim.

What the Court of Appeal decided

In the joined cases of Wicked Vision v Rice and Barton Turns v Treadwell, the Court of Appeal confirmed that:

employees can bring a detriment claim based on the act of dismissal under s47B
if the dismissal is treated as the act of a co-worker or agent
and the employer is vicariously liable for that act.

The Court said it might have reached a different conclusion if not bound by an earlier case (Timis v Osipov), but it confirmed that the legal position currently allows these claims to proceed.

What this means for HR

Employees who are dismissed after whistleblowing may now:

bring automatic unfair dismissal claims and
bring detriment claims against individual decision-makers, (and, flowing from this, the employer itself on the basis of its vicarious liability for the detrimental act of dismissal).

This increases potential financial and reputational risk, particularly because injury to feelings awards can apply in detriment claims.

Practical steps for HR

Ensure managers understand whistleblowing protections before taking action
Document decision-making clearly, showing genuine, non-whistleblowing reasons
Seek advice early where whistleblowing is a factor in disciplinary or dismissal processes

The ruling reinforces the need for careful handling of whistleblowing cases and dismissal decisions, as employers and individual managers may now face wider claims.

A ‘timely’ reminder: investigate misconduct promptly

The Acas Code of Practice is clear – misconduct investigations should begin without delay. Slow handling can seriously undermine the fairness of a disciplinary process and expose employers to legal risk.

A recent case, O’Brien v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, highlights the point. Ms O’Brien was dismissed in 2021 for allegedly failing to work contracted hours and falsely claiming overtime back in 2018. However, the concerns were not formally raised with her until almost a year later, during which she experienced significant ill health, including PTSD and memory difficulties.

She brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Although the employment tribunal rejected them, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned that decision, finding that the original tribunal had:

failed to properly assess whether the delay in raising the allegations made the dismissal unfair, particularly as it affected Ms O’Brien’s ability to respond.
failed to consider whether the Trust should have engaged with her informally and earlier as a reasonable adjustment linked to her disability.

The case has now been sent back for reconsideration.

What HR should take away

Delays in starting investigations can:

make it harder for employees to recall events.
damage mental health and increase stress.
weaken evidence and witness recollection.
lead to findings of unfair dismissal or discrimination.

Crucially, beginning an investigation does not mean disciplinary action is inevitable – it is simply a neutral, fact-finding step.

Practical tips for HR

Raise concerns with employees promptly
Gather statements while memories are fresh
Document early conversations and decisions
Consider whether health issues or disabilities require adjustments to the process

Acting quickly helps ensure a fair procedure, protects employee wellbeing and improves the reliability of evidence. For HR teams, timely action is not just best practice – it may determine whether a dismissal stands up to legal scrutiny.

Why employers should actively ensure staff take time away from work

Paid annual leave is a fundamental employment right in the UK, protected by the Working Time Regulations 1998. But beyond compliance, encouraging employees to step away from work is vital for maintaining a healthy, productive workforce. Tired, burnt-out staff are more likely to experience wellbeing issues, reduced performance and increased absence—ultimately costing employers far more than the time they spend away.

Workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday each year. Importantly, the law places responsibility on employers not only to acknowledge this entitlement, but also to promote its use. Simply making holiday available is not enough. Employers must actively:

confirm a worker’s entitlement to annual leave.
provide a genuine opportunity for them to take it or encourage them to do so.
warn them that unused leave, where it cannot be carried forward, will be lost at year end.

If an employer fails to meet these obligations, the consequences can be significant. Regulation 13(17) requires that any untaken or unpaid leave must be carried forward into the next holiday year – potentially creating operational and financial headaches.

To avoid this, and to support employee wellbeing, employers should take practical steps to help staff take breaks. Helpful measures include:

Having a clear, accessible holiday policy that explains rights and processes in straightforward language
Making the booking process simple, with user-friendly systems and minimal bureaucracy
Ensuring adequate cover so employees don’t feel pressured to work through holidays due to workload concerns
Sending reminders throughout the year about remaining leave balances and encouraging employees to plan time off
Issuing end-of-year communications prompting staff to schedule outstanding leave and warning that it may be lost
Training line managers so they understand the rules and avoid refusing requests that leave employees unable to take their entitlement

Proactively managing annual leave benefits both employees and the organisation. Workers return from breaks more engaged and productive, and employers reduce the risks associated with overwork and regulatory non-compliance. Ensuring that staff truly disconnect from work is not just a legal requirement – it is a key part of building a sustainable and supportive workplace culture.

Supporting employees through Baby Loss: legal rights and practical steps for HR

Baby loss is a deeply sensitive issue, and one where employers’ responses can have a lasting impact. While understanding the legal framework is essential, HR professionals should recognise that the practical, compassionate support offered to employees often matters just as much.

Legal rights: what HR needs to know

Employment rights following baby loss depend largely on the stage of pregnancy.

Where a loss occurs after the 24th week, the law treats it as childbirth. Mothers are entitled to maternity leave and statutory maternity pay, and partners may qualify for paternity leave. Redundancy protection also applies in full, giving affected employees priority for suitable alternative roles for up to 18 months after the date of birth. Parents may additionally be eligible for parental bereavement leave and pay, and – where a baby is born alive and spends time in neonatal care – neonatal care leave.

Before 24 weeks, current rights are far more limited. Employees experiencing miscarriage do not qualify for maternity or paternity leave, although redundancy protection now applies during pregnancy and for two weeks afterwards. Planned reforms under the Employment Rights Bill will introduce at least one week of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, but this is unlikely to take effect until 2027.

Creating a compassionate response

Given the gaps in legal protection, many employers are choosing to go further. HR teams can play a crucial role by ensuring managers understand the intersecting rights to leave and pay, and by making information easy to access at what is often an overwhelming time. Clear guidance or a standalone policy referencing pregnancy and baby loss can help employees feel able to ask for support.

Enhanced leave and pay, access to counselling, and flexibility around internal maternity policies can all provide meaningful reassurance. Training managers to handle sensitive conversations and recognising triggering occasions—such as Mother’s Day or Father’s Day – can also demonstrate care and understanding.

Ultimately, a thoughtful, joined-up approach helps employees feel supported through an extremely difficult experience, while reinforcing a compassionate and inclusive workplace culture.

How to handle retirement discussions: Simple tips for HR

Talking about retirement with employees can feel risky. Done badly, these conversations can damage trust and lead to claims of age discrimination or constructive dismissal.

Start with care – and avoid assumptions

Acas is clear: don’t raise retirement unless the employee does first. The case of Tapping v Ministry of Defence shows why. A civil servant in his 60s was asked about his retirement plans after raising a health-related grievance. The tribunal said this was unjustifiable age discrimination – a younger employee wouldn’t have been asked the same question.

Tip: Instead of asking older workers about retiring, ask all employees about their short-, medium- and long-term career plans during regular check-ins. This keeps discussions fair, inclusive and legally safe.

If the employee brings it up

If the employee raises retirement, you can discuss it. Keep the conversation open and exploratory, covering things like:

performance and support needs
career goals and timelines
organisational changes
flexible options, such as phased retirement

Avoid making assumptions or promises until formal notice is actually given.

Think carefully before offering a retirement payment

Some employers consider offering an ex gratia payment when retirement is mentioned. Take care: payments linked to retirement are often taxable, even if described as ex gratia.

Under ss393–394 ITEPA, any lump sum paid “on, after or in anticipation of retirement” may be treated as employment income and won’t qualify for the £30,000 tax-free exemption. In Forsyth v HMRC, the tribunal confirmed that even a settlement (formerly compromise) agreement can count as a “scheme” for these purposes.

Tip: Always take tax advice before offering any payment – and remember, there’s no legal requirement to make a retirement payment at all.

Managing the legal risks surrounding performance appraisals

Performance appraisals should drive growth, motivation and development – not open the door to legal claims. But as hybrid working becomes standard, many employers are finding their traditional appraisal processes increasingly vulnerable under legal scrutiny.

From a legal perspective, appraisals are more than just feedback – they’re evidence. If a dismissal or discrimination claim is brought, tribunals will dig into how performance was assessed, what standards were applied, and whether bias played a part.

What can go wrong?

Subjective ratings (“poor attitude”, “not a team player”) with no clear benchmarks can leave employers vulnerable to discrimination claims. If these ratings are then used to scaffold a formal performance management process, then there is a risk of undermining the fairness of the PIP process.
A lack of documentation makes it significantly more difficult for employers to act on performance concerns. There’s no point grumbling about an employee’s performance behind the scenes if those ‘grumbles’ are not brought out into the open, documented, and tackled.
Unconscious bias skewing the outcome. This can creep in in all sorts of ways. Whether it is an unconscious leaning towards those who ‘fit in’ more easily or the problem in hybrid teams, where proximity bias can favour those more physically present.

So how do you protect your organisation?

Set clear, measurable criteria – no vague language.
Train managers to recognise bias and assess remote and office-based staff equally. Consider ‘peer review’ of appraisal documentation to spot potential issues quickly.
Keep detailed, contemporaneous notes – assume they may be read aloud in a tribunal.
Calibrate across teams to ensure consistent scoring.
Let employees respond to their reviews and document the outcome.
Follow through on development plans.

Tip for HR: Treat appraisals like formal evidence – because that’s exactly what they’ll become if challenged.

And finally

And finally, employers are being warned to watch out for a new species hopping through the workplace: the ‘office frog’. The term has been coined to describe younger employees -particularly those of Gen Z – who move frequently from one job to another, leaping from role to role as a frog might from lily pad to lily pad.

For HR, this new buzz word should ring alarm bells. Onboarding is a costly process. If a business has found the right person for the job, they do not want to lose them. They want to retain talent. So, how can HR make sure that their recruits are not tempted to ‘hop off’ whenever a new opportunity presents itself? Here are some ideas:

Make sure that your pay and rewards package is competitive. If possible, look at flexible benefits structures so employees can pick and choose the right benefits for them. Gen Z will welcome the freedom and the control that that gives them.
If retention is an issue, tie performance-related pay to a requirement to remain in the business. For example, you may decide to structure bonus schemes so that an element of bonus is deferred – encouraging the employee to remain in the business to receive their full pay out.
Gather the views of your workforce – employees are more likely to feel invested in their workplace if they feel like they are playing an active part in shaping it.

These buzzwords don’t come from nowhere – they are a reflection of the mood of the workforce in the UK and should not be ignored.