After a protracted period of parliamentary ping-pong, the
\nEmployment Rights Act was finally agreed on 16 December 2025.<\/p>\n
This introduces sweeping changes that are set to reshape the
\nlandscape of employment law. By topic, our dashboard clarifies the
\ncurrent legal position and what it will look like under the
\nAct.<\/p>\n
In terms of when these changes will take effect, on 1 July 2025
Additional reforms outside the scope of the Act were outlined in
Unfair dismissal and probationary periods<\/p>\n Right not to be unfairly dismissed \u2013 reduced qualifying
Now: Employees need to work for 2 years before
What the Act says: Although Labour originally
The government also plan to make it harder for future
What next: The government has committed to this
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked – day one unfair
Unfair dismissal compensation<\/p>\n Now: Compensation for unfair dismissal is
What the Act says: Both the 52 week and
This does not impact on the basic award and statutory redundancy
What next: An impact assessment has been
Read more:<\/p>\n Government wants to abolish the cap on unfair
Government U-turns on day one unfair dismissal
Uncapped unfair dismissal awards \u2013 will
Redundancy and restructuring<\/p>\n Restrictions on ‘fire and rehire’<\/p>\n Now: The Code of Practice on fire and rehire
What the Act says: Employers’ ability to
Dismissals to impose changes to certain key contractual terms
The Act also allows for accompanying regulations to clarify that
There is a limited qualified exception for employers acting in
If a dismissal and re-engagement is used to impose a contractual
The ban also extends to “fire and replace” scenarios,
In the very narrow circumstances when fire and rehire is
What next: The government previously indicated
According to the Roadmap, these changes will take effect in
Read more:<\/p>\n New Deal talking points: what will Labour’s
Employment Rights Bill unpacked: ‘fire and
More Employment Rights Bill amendments
Collective redundancy consultation trigger change<\/p>\n Now: Employers proposing 20+ redundancies
What the Act says: The Act adds a new threshold
The Act also increases the maximum protective award to 180
What next: In the Roadmap, the government
The additional threshold test for collective redundancies will
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: collective
Penalties for not collectively consulting<\/p>\n Now: If an employer does not comply with
What the Act says: The Act doubles the maximum
What next: The new penalty will apply from
Read more:<\/p>\n Thinking about collective redundancies? Watch out
Outsourcing of public services and TUPE<\/p>\n Now: Ex-public sector employees and private
What the Act says: The Act introduces powers to
What next: Detailed regulations and a Code of
More generally, there will be a Call for Evidence to examine
According to the Roadmap, the two-tier procurement provisions
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: will TUPE be
Zero hours contracts and predictability<\/p>\n Duty to offer guaranteed hours<\/p>\n Now: Zero-hour contracts are allowed but
What the Act says: The Act does not ban zero
Employers will have a duty to offer qualifying workers a
Qualifying workers are those who, during the reference period,
Key points, including the length of the reference period, the
The offer of guaranteed hours must reflect the hours worked
There are exceptions. Addressing the possibility of short-term
The obligation to offer guaranteed hours will cease to apply if
The duty to offer guaranteed hours can be disapplied by a
A worker who is not offered hours on these terms can bring an
In terms of the mechanics of offering guaranteed hours in a
The pay offered to agency workers under a guaranteed hours offer
What next: Consultation on these measures is
However, as noted, a number of key provisions remain to be
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: will guaranteed
Employment Rights Bill unpacked: zero hours
Right to reasonable notice of work schedules and proportionate
Now: No statutory right to notice of
What the Act says: Workers gain the right to
There is also a right to reasonable notice of any change or
Cancelled shifts include the situation in which a shift is
There is a duty on employers to make a payment to workers each
These provisions can be disapplied by the terms of a collective
Following consultation, these provisions will apply to agency
What next: Consultation on these measures is
Then, according to the Roadmap, these measures (including their
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: shifting the
Employment Rights Bill unpacked: zero hours
More Employment Rights Bill amendments
Work-life balance<\/p>\n Stronger rights to flexible working<\/p>\n Now: Employees have a right to request flexible
What the Act says: Refusal of a flexible
What next: According to the Roadmap,
In terms of secondary legislation, draft regulations may set out
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: will flexible
Right to switch off<\/p>\n Now: There is no explicit right to disconnect
What the Act says: This is not covered in the
What next: In a House of Lord’s debate, a
Read more:<\/p>\n New Deal talking points: New details emerge on
New Deal talking points: What could a new right to
Diversity, discrimination and pay reporting<\/p>\n Gender Pay Action plans<\/p>\n Now: Employers with 250+ employees must publish
What the Act says: New regulations will require
What next: The regulations need to be drafted
In terms of implementation, the Roadmap indicates that these
Gender pay gap reports to identify contract workers<\/p>\n Now: Employers with 250+ employees must publish
What the Act says: Regulations will require
What next: Accompanying regulations are needed
The Roadmap indicates that implementation will depend on
Stronger duty to prevent sexual harassment<\/p>\n Now: Employers must take “reasonable
What the Act says: Employers will have to take
What next: The Roadmap indicates that these
Somewhat confusingly, according to the Roadmap, the power to
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: tougher stance on
Employers to be liable for harassment by third parties<\/p>\n Now: Employers are not explicitly\/directly
What the Act says: Employers will be liable for
What next: The Roadmap indicates that these
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: tougher stance on
Disclosure of sexual harassment to be added to list of
Now: Employees who disclose a breach of health
What the Act says: Disclosing sexual harassment
What next: The Roadmap indicates that
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: tougher stance on
Non-disclosure agreements<\/p>\n Now: There has been longstanding concern about
What the Act says: Any agreement preventing a
This ban may be extended to agreements with independent
The new provision covers harassment or discrimination by the
What next: It is not currently clear when this
Read more:<\/p>\n More Employment Rights Bill amendments
Ban on dual discrimination<\/p>\n Now: The Equality Act 2010 already contains a
What the Act says: This was not covered in the
What next: It’s possible that the
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: discrimination
Ethnicity pay gap reporting<\/p>\n Now: Ethnicity pay gap reporting is not
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill did
What next: A draft Bill is expected in early
Disability pay gap reporting<\/p>\n Now: Disability pay gap reporting is not
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill
What next: A draft Bill is expected in early
New pay transparency measures<\/p>\n Now: The EU’s Pay Transparency Directive
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill
What next: It’s not clear if these measures
Extension of equal pay rights<\/p>\n Now: Equal pay claims made under the equal pay
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill
What next: A draft Equality (Race and
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: discrimination
Equal Pay enforcement unit<\/p>\n Now: Equal pay claims are brought by
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill
What next: This may be dealt with in the
Employee representation and voice<\/p>\n Right of trade union access<\/p>\n Now: There is no general right for trade unions
What the Act says: Trade union officials will
If an employer fails to comply, the CAC will have powers to
The government has consulted on how the right should work in
What next: The government will now publish
These measures are expected take effect in October 2026.<\/p>\n Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill: consultations on trade
Reforms to statutory union recognition<\/p>\n Now: The recognition process is complex – to
What the Act says: The Act meaningfully lowers
What next: The government previously indicated
Read more:<\/p>\n New Deal talking points: what will Labour’s
Collective grievance process<\/p>\n Now: There is no legal requirement on employers
What the Act says: The Employment Rights Bill
What next: The government has stated that it
Read more:<\/p>\n New Deal talking points: what will Labour’s
Obligation to notify workers of their right to join a trade
Now: Employers must give all workers a written
What the Act says: The Act expands the list of
What next: These measures are expected take
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill: consultations on trade
Repeal of Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and Trade
Now: The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act
The Trade Union Act 2016 imposed various limitations on strikes,
Industrial action balloting must be done in secret by post.<\/p>\n What the Act says: The Act repeals the Strikes
What next: The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels)
New protections for trade union reps and members<\/p>\n Now: Employees cannot be subjected to
What the Act says: The Act introduces new
The Act also introduces a new statutory role for “union
Existing rights of representatives of recognised unions,
The Act also extends existing protections against blacklisting,
What next: According to the Roadmap, the
Fair Pay Agreement in adult social care<\/p>\n Now: Pay and other terms and conditions in the
What the Act says: The Act gives the government
What next: The government will consult on its
In terms of timing, according to the Roadmap, regulations to
Surveillance technologies – negotiations with trade unions and
Now: There are no specific statutory provisions
What the Act says: This was not mentioned in
What next: The Next Steps document indicates
Family rights<\/p>\n Protection for maternity returners<\/p>\n Now: In redundancy situations, women have the
What the Act says: The Act gives the government
While the precise content of the regulations is not yet clear,
According to the explanatory notes at the Bill stage, this will
What next: We await further detail in
In terms of implementation, the Roadmap indicates that the
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill consultations: enhanced
Employment Rights Bill unpacked: just getting
Right to bereavement leave (including for pregnancy loss)<\/p>\n Now: There’s no general statutory right to
What the Act says: The Act gives the government
What next: Further regulations are required to
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill consultations: bereavement
Employment Rights Bill unpacked: just getting
Day 1 parental leave<\/p>\n Now: Employees need to have been employed for
What the Act says: The Act removes any length
What next: The Roadmap indicates that this
Paternity leave changes<\/p>\n Length of service<\/p>\n Now: Eligibility for statutory paternity leave
What the Act says: The Act removes any length
What next: The Roadmap indicates that this
Interplay with shared parental leave<\/p>\n Now: Employees lose any entitlement to
What the Act says: Employees will now be able
What next: Although not directly mentioned in
Read more:<\/p>\n Employment Rights Bill unpacked: just getting
Sickness, wellbeing and disability<\/p>\n Menopause action plans<\/p>\n Now: There are no proactive obligations for
What the Act says: New regulations will require
What next: The regulations will set out the
Read more:<\/p>\n Menopause and mental health: addressing the
Statutory sick pay reforms<\/p>\n Now: Statutory sick pay is payable from day
What the Act says: SSP will be payable from day
What next: This will become law in a date set
Worker status and self-employment<\/p>\n New single status of worker<\/p>\n Now: There is a 3-tier system for employment
What the Act says: Nothing. The Next Steps
What next: The government has indicated that
Pay and tax<\/p>\n Holiday (entitlement and pay) records<\/p>\n Now: There is no specific obligation to keep
What the Act says: The Act imposes a new
What next: We’re waiting for confirmation
National Living Wage<\/p>\n Now: The National Living Wage increases in
What the Act says: Nothing – the NLW was not
What next: The rates will go up again in April
Ban on unpaid internships<\/p>\n Now: Status of interns can be a grey area.
What the Act says: Nothing. But the government
What next: The Call for Evidence closed on 9
Read more:<\/p>\n New Deal talking points: Will a ban on unpaid
Tips<\/p>\n Now: New tipping legislation took effect in
What the Act says: The Act strengthens existing
What next: According to the Roadmap,
Umbrella companies<\/p>\n Now: There are concerns that, as regulated,
What the Act says: The Act defines umbrella
What next: The Roadmap suggests consultation
Enforcement<\/p>\n Extension of time limits for bringing tribunal claims<\/p>\n Now: Most tribunal claims need to be brought
What the Act says: Time limits for bringing
What next: According to the Roadmap, this is
Read more:<\/p>\n
\nthe government published a roadmap for the delivery, ending
\nspeculation on potential implementation dates. The dates in our
\ndashboard are based on this roadmap, as modified to reflect
\nmilestones which have already been missed. See our timeline<\/a> for an overview of
\nimplementation.<\/p>\n
\nthe government’s ‘Next Steps to Make Work Pay’. These
\nare also detailed here.<\/p>\n
\nperiod<\/p>\n
\nthey have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Employers must
\ngive written reasons for dismissal to employees with 2 years’
\nservice on request.<\/p>\n
\npromised day 1 unfair dismissal rights, during parliamentary
\nping-pong, the government accepted a House of Lords amendment
\nsubstituting a qualifying period of six months before an employee
\ncan claim unfair dismissal.<\/p>\n
\ngovernments to amend the qualifying period by ensuring it can only
\nbe varied by primary legislation.<\/p>\n
\nchange coming into effect from 1 January 2027, meaning anyone with
\n6 months’ service on or after that date will be able to claim
\nunfair dismissal.<\/p>\n
\ndismissal rights<\/a>
\nGovernment U-turns on day one unfair dismissal
\nrights – but adds compensation hike?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nlimited to 52 weeks’ gross pay or a statutory cap (whichever is
\nlower). The compensatory award cap, which increases in line with
\ninflation every April, currently sits at \u00a3118,223<\/a>. This is an important contrast
\nto discrimination and whistleblowing claims for which damages are
\nuncapped.<\/p>\n
\nfinancial cap are abolished.<\/p>\n
\npay which are still calculated on a formula based on age, length of
\nservice and gross weekly pay.<\/p>\n
\npromised, but it’s currently unclear whether there will be any
\nfurther consultation on this. It’s assumed these changes will
\ncome in at the same time as the unfair dismissal qualification
\nperiod change on 1 January 2027.<\/p>\n
\ndismissal compensation: what employers need to know<\/a><\/p>\n
\nrights – but adds compensation hike?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nGreat Britain become an outlier?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nwas put in place in July 2024. The practice remains lawful, albeit
\nincreasingly high-risk from a reputational and industrial relations
\nperspective.<\/p>\n
\nuse fire and rehire to change terms and conditions will be
\nsignificantly restricted.<\/p>\n
\n(pay, required number of working hours, pension, shift times and
\nlength, time off rights, and other changes to be defined in
\nregulations (which may include benefits)) will be automatically
\nunfair if the reason for dismissal is that the employee did not
\nagree to the employer’s attempt to vary these terms, or because
\nthe employer intended to employ another person on varied terms to
\ncarry out substantially the same role. Closing a potential
\nloophole, the ban also extends to dismissals aimed at imposing new
\nflexibility clauses covering these protected terms.<\/p>\n
\nexpenses and certain types of pay may be out of scope, and to
\ndefine which changes to contractual benefits (other than pension)
\nare in scope.<\/p>\n
\nresponse to financial difficulties affecting their ability to carry
\non business as a going concern.<\/p>\n
\nchange that falls outside of the categories above, the dismissal
\nwill not be automatically unfair. Whether it is fair or not will
\nnot be judged according to the usual tests – the wording requires
\ntribunals to take account of the reason for the variation, any
\nindividual or collective consultation, and anything the employee
\nwas offered in return for the change (arguably all factors a
\ntribunal would have considered in any event).<\/p>\n
\nwhere employees are dismissed and replaced with self-employed
\ncontractors, workers who are not employees, agency workers, or any
\nother non-employees to do substantially the same work. Such
\ndismissals will be automatically unfair unless the employer is
\nfacing financial collapse and the measure could not reasonably have
\nbeen avoided. Transfers of employment covered by TUPE and
\ndismissals wholly or mainly attributable to a reduction in work are
\nnot caught by this new rule.<\/p>\n
\npotentially permitted, the Code of Practice will still apply, but
\nwill be updated.<\/p>\n
\nthat it intended to gather views on updating the Code of Practice
\nduring autumn 2025. This exercise is yet to start.<\/p>\n
\nOctober 2026.<\/p>\n
\ntrade union reforms mean for non-unionised employers?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nrehire’<\/a><\/p>\n
\npublished
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n“at one establishment” within a period of 90 days must go
\nthrough a process of collective consultation before making any
\nredundancies. If employers don’t comply, employees can claim a
\nprotective award of up to 90 days’ pay.<\/p>\n
\ntest, requiring collective consultation if there are either 20+
\nredundancies at one establishment, or if another \u2013 new -
\nthreshold test is met. This will be defined in regulations but will
\ninvolve counting employees across all sites\/workplaces, potentially
\nbased on a percentage or number higher than 20 (e.g. the lower of
\n10% or 100 employees across the business as a whole). The Act also
\nstates that, in carrying out collective consultation, the employer
\ndoes not need to consult all employee representatives together or
\ntry to reach the same agreement with all the representatives.<\/p>\n
\ndays’ pay.<\/p>\n
\nindicated that it will consult on collective redundancy measures in
\nwinter 2025 \/ early 2026 and this is yet to start. Consultation is
\nlikely to cover the new threshold test plus the question of whether
\nto double the minimum consultation period when an employer is
\nproposing to dismiss 100 or more employees (from 45 to 90
\ndays).<\/p>\n
\nbe introduced in 2027.<\/p>\n
\nredundancies
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncollective consultation requirements for redundancies (including
\nfire & rehire exercises) it faces a protective award of 90
\ndays’ pay per employee.<\/p>\n
\nprotective award to 180 days’ pay. It does not, however, make
\n‘interim relief’ available as a remedy, as had at one point
\nbeen proposed.<\/p>\n
\nApril 2026 according to the Roadmap.<\/p>\n
\nfor new penalties and uncertain timings
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nsector employees can work on different terms and conditions
\nfollowing the transfer of public contract.<\/p>\n
\navoid a “two-tier workforce” with ex-public sector
\nemployees and private sector employees being employed on different
\nterms and conditions. Regulations may require public outsourcing
\ncontracts to include provisions to ensure that (1) any workers
\ntransferring from the public sector should be treated no less
\nfavourably than they were when employed in the public sector, and
\n(2) private sector workers working for a supplier will need to be
\ntreated no less favourably than the ex-public sector workers who
\nhave transferred.<\/p>\n
\nPractice will be introduced relating to outsourcing public service
\ncontracts.<\/p>\n
\nTUPE and how it is implemented in practice, potentially in early
\n2026.<\/p>\n
\nwill take effect in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\ntransformed<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncan’t include clauses preventing employees working elsewhere.
\nThere is no explicit right to have a more predictable working
\npattern.<\/p>\n
\nhours contracts, but the effect of the complex rules requiring
\nemployers to make an offer of a guaranteed hours contract to a
\nqualifying worker is likely to reduce their use.<\/p>\n
\ncontract that reflects the hours regularly worked over a reference
\nperiod. This duty will continue to apply until the worker no longer
\nmeets the qualifying criteria. Following consultation, these
\nprovisions have also been extended to agency workers.<\/p>\n
\nworked under a zero hours contract, or who worked under a “low
\nhours” contract and worked hours in excess of the minimum
\nhours specified in the contract.<\/p>\n
\nthreshold of “low hours”, and conditions on the number
\nand regularity of those hours, remain to be defined in regulations.
\nHowever, the government has previously indicated a preference for a
\nperiod of 12 weeks.<\/p>\n
\nduring the reference period and regulations will provide additional
\ndetails regarding the specific working pattern or days that must be
\noffered. It also remains to be confirmed what prescribed form the
\noffer must be made in and \u2013 importantly \u2013 how long it
\nmust remain open for.<\/p>\n
\nlabour needs, the Act provides that the offer can be a fixed-term
\ncontract if that is reasonable (i.e. not permanent guaranteed hours
\nas is the default). “Reasonable” could include when there
\nis a “temporary work need” or when the worker is needed
\nfor a specific task, but the scope of this is uncertain. There is
\nalso an open-ended provision for further exceptions to be set out
\nin the regulations.<\/p>\n
\nthe worker resigns or has been fairly dismissed during the
\nqualifying period or a limited-term contract came to end (in
\ncertain circumstances). If the termination occurs after the offer
\nbut before acceptance, the offer is considered withdrawn.<\/p>\n
\ncollective agreement and does not need to be substituted with a
\nsimilar entitlement.<\/p>\n
\nemployment tribunal claim, with the maximum award to be set out in
\nregulations. Employers will also need to be aware of the tribunal
\nclaim which aims to prevent manipulation of work patterns to avoid
\nthe application of these provisions. Essentially, this applies if
\nthe right to guaranteed hours would have been applicable had the
\nemployer not restricted the hours available during the reference
\nperiod.<\/p>\n
\ntripartite relationship, it will be the responsibility of the end
\nhirer to make any guaranteed hours offer, although regulations may
\nplace obligations on the agency in some scenarios. The collective
\nagreement contracting out provisions can also cover agency
\nworkers.<\/p>\n
\nmust be no less favourable than the agency terms they’d been
\nworking under or those of comparable workers. Additionally, when an
\nagency worker accepts a guaranteed hours offer from an end-hirer,
\nthey will become a worker (rather than an employee).<\/p>\n
\nnow expected in early 2026. Then, according to the Roadmap, these
\nmeasures (including their application to agency workers) will take
\neffect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\ndetermined in secondary legislation. Detailed government guidance
\nis also expected.<\/p>\n
\nhours guarantee flexibility for both parties?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nreforms extended to agency workers
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncompensation<\/p>\n
\nshifts.<\/p>\n
\nreasonable notice of a shift, including the time, day and how many
\nhours are to be worked. This duty will apply to workers employed on
\na zero hours or minimum hours basis, as well as workers who do not
\nhave a set working pattern.<\/p>\n
\ncancelled shift. This includes the extension of contractually
\nguaranteed shifts. What is “reasonable” notice will
\ndepend on the circumstances, but regulations will set out a
\nspecific minimum time.<\/p>\n
\noffered to more people than are needed, and then the worker is
\nultimately not required because someone else has agreed to cover
\nit. However, a worker will only have entitlement to payment for a
\nshort notice cancellation etc. if they had reasonably believed that
\nthey would be needed for that shift. This provision potentially
\nhelps to clarify the scope of these rules when shifts are offered
\nto a large number of workers.<\/p>\n
\ntime there is a change to a shift at “short notice”.
\nDetails will be clarified in regulations, but compensation will be
\nproportionate to the cancellation or curtailment.<\/p>\n
\nagreement and this does not have to be substituted with something
\nsimilar.<\/p>\n
\nworkers. It will be the responsibility of both the employment
\nagency and end hirer to provide an agency worker with reasonable
\nnotice of shifts. The responsibility for paying any cancellation or
\ncurtailment payments falls to the agency only, although this can be
\nrecouped from the end hirer.<\/p>\n
\nexpected in early 2026. It’s anticipated that this will
\nconsider how much notice must be given, what payment must be made,
\nhow any compensation will be calculated and any exceptions.<\/p>\n
\napplication to agency workers) will take effect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\npower for shift workers<\/a><\/p>\n
\nreforms extended to agency workers<\/a><\/p>\n
\npublished<\/a><\/p>\n
\nworking from day 1. Employers can refuse based on one or more of
\nthe eight business reasons listed in legislation. The penalty for
\nbreaching the statutory flexible working regime is eight weeks’
\npay, currently capped at \u00a35,600.<\/p>\n
\nworking request must be reasonable, although the eight business
\nreasons remain the same. An employer must state and explain to the
\nemployee what the ground for any refusal is and why their refusal
\nis considered reasonable. There is no change to the penalty.<\/p>\n
\nconsultation on these measures will take place in winter 2025 \/
\nearly 2026 and this is yet to start, with the measures set to take
\neffect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\nsteps to be taken when consulting with an employee before refusing
\na request.<\/p>\n
\nworking really be the “default”?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nin UK law.<\/p>\n
\nAct. The government previously indicated that it would deliver a
\nright to switch off through a statutory Code of Practice.<\/p>\n
\nspokesperson confirmed the government’s commitment to
\nimplementing the right to switch off, despite earlier press reports
\nthat it would not move forward with this proposal. We await
\nconsultation on a draft Code of Practice.<\/p>\n
\nLabour’s right to switch off<\/a><\/p>\n
\ndisconnect look like under a Labour government?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nannual gender pay gap reports. Employers are not required to
\npublish an action plan for closing it, but many do so. The
\nrequirement is enforced by the Equality and Human Rights
\nCommission.<\/p>\n
\nemployers with 250+ employees to publish “equality action
\nplans” including gender pay gap action plans. The regulations
\nwill include specific penalties for not doing so.<\/p>\n
\nand we expect further consultation. The regulations will set out
\nthe detailed requirements and how often plans must be published,
\nbut this cannot be more than every 12 months.<\/p>\n
\nmeasures will be introduced on a voluntary basis in April 2026,
\nbefore coming into force in 2027.<\/p>\n
\nannual gender pay gap reports covering their employees. Reports are
\nbased on a snapshot taken on 5 April and must be published within a
\nyear of the snapshot, i.e. by 4 April the next year.<\/p>\n
\nemployers to identify the providers\/employers of contract workers.
\nThis does not mean that gender pay gap data must include data
\nreflecting what contract workers are paid. It is simply a
\nrequirement to name the providers\/employers of those contract
\nworkers.<\/p>\n
\nto extend the scope of gender pay gap reporting in this way and
\nthere may be further consultation on the details.<\/p>\n
\ntimelines for broader changes related to pay gap reporting, in the
\nupcoming Equality (Race & Disability) Bill (not yet
\npublished).<\/p>\n
\nsteps” to prevent sexual harassment of employees and workers
\nin the course of their employment.<\/p>\n
\n“all” reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment.
\nThe Act gives the government powers to set out what amounts to
\n“reasonable steps” in regulations. The government also
\nran a call for evidence on “what works” to reduce and
\nprevent sexual harassment in the workplace.<\/p>\n
\nmeasures will take effect in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\nintroduce regulations will not take effect until 2027, after the
\nobligation itself has come into force.<\/p>\n
\nworkplace harassment
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nliable if their employees are harassed by customers\/clients\/other
\nthird parties.<\/p>\n
\nthird party harassment unless the employer took all reasonable
\nsteps to prevent this. This covers all types of harassment not just
\nsexual harassment.<\/p>\n
\nmeasures will take effect in October 2026 and does not indicate
\nthere will be further consultation on them.<\/p>\n
\nworkplace harassment
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nqualifying disclosures<\/p>\n
\nand safety obligations or other breach of the law are protected as
\nwhistleblowers if they reasonably believe the disclosure is in the
\npublic interest. Sexual harassment complaints can already be
\ndisclosures which qualify for protection where they meet the public
\ninterest test and count as a breach of health and safety
\nobligations or breach of a legal obligation.<\/p>\n
\nhas been added to the list of what counts as a qualifying
\ndisclosure, making it more explicit that this can amount to
\nwhistleblowing \u2013 as long as it meets the test of reasonable
\nbelief that it is made in the public interest (and other tests
\nneeded for it to be a protected disclosure).<\/p>\n
\nwhistleblowing protections will take effect in April 2026, with no
\nfurther consultation planned.<\/p>\n
\nworkplace harassment<\/a><\/p>\n
\nthe abuse of NDAs where they prevent disclosures about sexual
\nharassment. The absence of regulation of these kinds of waivers was
\na notable omission from the original draft of the Bill.<\/p>\n
\nworker from making allegations or disclosures about harassment or
\ndiscrimination, including disclosures about the employer’s
\nresponse to such allegations, will be void.<\/p>\n
\ncontractors and those in work experience or training.
\nRegulations may also define “excepted agreements” where
\nthe ban does not apply, potentially following Ireland’s
\napproach, which allows NDAs at the employee’s request with
\nprior independent legal advice.<\/p>\n
\nemployer or fellow workers. The wording also seems wide enough to
\ncover third-party harassment claims. Victimisation is also covered
\n(although the wording is not clear that all types of victimisation
\nare covered, such as acts of victimisation by a colleague rather
\nthan the employer).<\/p>\n
\nban will come into effect as it was not included in the
\ngovernment’s roadmap for implementation of the Act.<\/p>\n
\npublished<\/a><\/p>\n
\nprovision about dual discrimination (called “combined
\ndiscrimination”) but it has never been brought into force.
\nThis provides that it is direct discrimination to treat a person
\nless favourably because of a combination of 2 protected
\ncharacteristics.<\/p>\n
\nBill but the government ran a call for evidence on how to bring
\nthis provision into force, which closed on 30 June 2025.<\/p>\n
\ngovernment will legislate on this as part of the expected Equality
\n(Race and Disability) Bill (not yet published).<\/p>\n
\nlaw
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncompulsory, although there is government guidance for employers who
\nchoose to report voluntarily.<\/p>\n
\nnot deal with ethnicity pay gap reporting but the government plans
\nto introduce this under the separate Equality (Race and Disability)
\nBill. The government ran a consultation on how ethnicity pay gap
\nreporting will work, which closed on 10 June 2025.<\/p>\n
\n2026.<\/p>\n
\ncompulsory.<\/p>\n
\ndid not deal with disability pay gap reporting but the government
\nplans to introduce this under the separate Equality (Race and
\nDisability) Bill. The government ran a consultation on how
\ndisability pay gap reporting will work, which closed on 10 June
\n2025.<\/p>\n
\n2026.<\/p>\n
\nrequires employers to take several measures to improve pay
\ntransparency, including providing salary ranges when recruiting,
\nnot asking candidates about salary history and providing employees
\nwith information about their pay and how it compares to those doing
\nthe same role or work of equal value. These measures do not apply
\nin the UK.<\/p>\n
\ndid not deal with this topic but the government ran a call for
\nevidence about whether these sorts of pay transparency measures
\nshould also be extended to Great Britain, which closed on 30 June
\n2025.<\/p>\n
\nwill form part of the expected Equality (Race and Disability) Bill
\n(not yet published).<\/p>\n
\nregime are currently limited to differences in pay based on sex.
\nClaims about pay based on other protected characteristics have to
\nbe brought under discrimination law. Outsourced employees cannot
\ncompare themselves against direct hires for the purposes of an
\nequal pay claim.<\/p>\n
\ndid not deal with the extension of equal pay rights but the
\ngovernment plans to legislate under the separate Equality (Race and
\nDisability) Bill. The government ran a call for evidence on how to
\n“make the right to equal pay effective” for ethnic
\nminority and disabled people, which closed on 30 June 2025. The new
\nlegislation could extend existing equal pay laws to cover race and
\ndisability (the government’s original plan) or follow some
\nother model. The call for evidence also explored allowing pay
\ncomparisons between outsourced and “in house”
\nworkers.<\/p>\n
\nDisability) Bill is expected in early 2026.<\/p>\n
\nlaw<\/a><\/p>\n
\nindividuals, albeit often acting in groups.<\/p>\n
\ndid not deal with this issue, but the government ran a call for
\nevidence on establishing a new Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement
\nUnit, which closed on 30 June 2025.<\/p>\n
\nseparate Equality (Race and Disability) Bill (not yet
\npublished).<\/p>\n
\nto access workplaces for recruitment and organisation of members
\n\u2013 exceptionally unions can currently only come onto an
\nemployer’s premises if the employer agrees (for example as part
\nof a collective agreement where the union is already recognised) or
\nit is ordered by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) ahead of a
\nstatutory recognition ballot.<\/p>\n
\nhave a wider right to access workplaces for recruitment, organising
\n(not including organising industrial action) and collective
\nbargaining purposes, subject to following a prescriptive statutory
\nprocess. This includes digital\/virtual access, which will
\npotentially help unions to engage with workers more effectively.
\nUnions will gain a right to request access: in response, employers
\ncan either choose to negotiate the terms of “access
\nagreements” or the union will be able to apply to the CAC for
\nit to order access, with a presumption that union officials should
\nbe able to access a workplace in any manner that does not
\nunreasonably interfere with the employer’s business. The detail
\nof default terms for access arrangements (where the parties are
\nunable to reach agreement through negotiation) will be prescribed
\nin future regulations. Any part of the workplace used as a
\n‘dwelling’ will be exempt.<\/p>\n
\norder the employer to take steps to enable access to the workplace
\nby union officials and to impose financial penalties Consultation
\non the proposed enforcement framework for access agreements closed
\non 2 December 2024, and the detailed framework for financial
\npenalties will be consulted on further.<\/p>\n
\npractice and the maximum value of the financial penalties that can
\nbe imposed by the CAC.<\/p>\n
\nsecondary legislation setting out in detail the statutory process
\nfor requesting access, the grounds on which the CAC will be able to
\nrefuse requests for access and the default access arrangements
\nwhich the CAC can impose.<\/p>\n
\nunion reforms
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncommence an application for statutory recognition, a union must
\nshow that at least 10% of a proposed bargaining unit are union
\nmembers and that the majority of them are likely to support
\nrecognition. The CAC can only then order recognition if, either (i)
\nat least 50% of the bargaining unit are union members or (ii) a
\nballot is held, in which a majority of votes cast are in favour and
\nat least 40% of all workers in the bargaining unit vote for
\nrecognition. Restrictions on unfair practices only apply when the
\nCAC has ordered a ballot. There are no specific rules dealing with
\nemployees hired into the proposed bargaining unit during the
\nprocess.<\/p>\n
\nthe hurdles of the process by removing the 40% threshold and the
\ninitial requirement to show majority support is likely. The Act
\nalso gives the government the power to reduce the required
\nthreshold for union membership to as low as 2% of the proposed
\nbargaining unit through future secondary legislation. Restrictions
\non unfair practices will apply as soon as a union’s request for
\nstatutory recognition is accepted by the CAC. Also, employees hired
\nmore than 10 days after the CAC receives the union’s
\napplication will not be eligible to vote in the recognition process
\nor be counted towards the number of workers in the bargaining unit
\nfor recognition purposes.<\/p>\n
\nthat it would consult on trade union recognition processes in
\nautumn 2025 but this exercise is yet to start. These reforms to the
\nrecognition process are expected take effect in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\ntrade union reforms mean for non-unionised employers?
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nto adopt a procedure for collective grievances. Employees can raise
\nindividual grievances, and have a statutory right to be accompanied
\nby a trade union representative at an individual grievance
\nhearing.<\/p>\n
\ndid not deal with collective grievances, however, the government
\nhave confirmed that this is one of their longer-term delivery
\nreforms, taking longer to undertake and implement. The government
\nwill consult with Acas to allow employees to collectively raise
\ngrievances about conduct in the workplace.<\/p>\n
\nwill consult with Acas on this proposal, but no reference is made
\nto this in the Roadmap.<\/p>\n
\ntrade union reforms mean for non-unionised employers?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nunion<\/p>\n
\nstatement of employment particulars when they start work: among
\nother prescribed information, these must state whether there is a
\ncollective agreement which affects their terms and conditions of
\nemployment. The penalties for not doing so are limited (two to four
\nweek’s pay capped at \u00a32,800).<\/p>\n
\nrequired particulars that employers must give to their employees to
\ninclude an explicit statement that workers have the right to join a
\ntrade union. The specific content and form of this statement and
\nthe obligations placed on employers in terms of when and how it
\nshould be provided will be set out in future secondary legislation.
\nThe government launched a consultation on how the duty to inform
\nworkers of their right to join a trade union should work in
\npractice, which closed on 18 December 2025.<\/p>\n
\neffect in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\nunion reforms<\/a><\/p>\n
\nUnion Act 2016 and permission for electronic balloting<\/p>\n
\n2023 gives the government powers to set minimum service levels
\nduring strikes in essential services.<\/p>\n
\nincluding longer notice periods, restrictions on picketing, higher
\nballot thresholds for certain important public services and the
\nexpiry of industrial action mandates after six months.<\/p>\n
\n(Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and most of the Trade Union Act
\n2016, rolling back almost all of the restrictions on calling strike
\naction introduced by Conservative-led governments since 2010. The
\nAct also simplifies the information which unions must provide to
\nemployers in notices of ballots and industrial action, lengthens
\nindustrial action mandates to 12 months, reduces the notice
\nrequired for industrial action from 14 to 10 days and allows for
\nelectronic balloting.<\/p>\n
\nAct will be repealed as soon as the Act has Royal Assent, and the
\nrelevant provisions of the Trade Union Act will be repealed two
\nmonths later, without further consultation. Electronic balloting is
\nexpected to be introduced in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\ndetrimental treatment or dismissal because of their trade union
\nmembership or activities; however, the Supreme Court recently
\nconfirmed in Mercer<\/a> that there is no protection from
\ndetriments short of dismissal for taking part in industrial action.
\nIt’s also unlawful to refuse to employ someone on grounds
\nrelating to trade union membership or to compile a
\n‘blacklist’ of union members and representatives.<\/p>\n
\nprotection for workers against detriments short of dismissal for
\ntaking part in protected industrial action, correcting the gap in
\nexisting protection confirmed in the Mercer decision. It also
\nstrengthens and simplifies the existing protection against being
\ndismissed for taking part in protected industrial action.<\/p>\n
\nequality representatives” in workplaces with recognised
\nunions. Their duties will include promoting equality in the
\nworkplace, providing advice and support to union members on
\nequality matters, and consulting with the employer on equality
\nmatters. They will have a right to paid time off to carry out these
\nduties.<\/p>\n
\nrequiring employers to provide them with reasonable facilities and
\naccommodations to carry out their duties, will be increased, in
\naddition to their existing right to paid time off.<\/p>\n
\nto cover discriminatory actions by bodies other than employers or
\nemployment agencies.<\/p>\n
\ngovernment will consult on the package of trade union measures that
\nincludes protections against detriment in winter 2025 \/ early 2026
\nand this is yet to start. These measures are then expected take
\neffect in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\nsocial care sector are set by individual employers and are only
\ncollectively bargained with trade unions where they are recognised
\nby particular employers.<\/p>\n
\nnew powers to establish the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body, an
\nindustry-wide body composed of representatives of employers and
\nunions in the social care sector. The Secretary of State will be
\nable to ‘ratify’ agreements reached within the Negotiating
\nBody relating to the terms and conditions of all staff employed in
\nthe provision of adult social care in England, in which case they
\nwill become binding on all employers in the sector. They can also
\nset pay directly in the event of a failure to reach an agreement
\nwithin the Negotiating Body.<\/p>\n
\nproposals for ‘Fair Pay Agreements’ in the adult social
\ncare sector. It will now publish regulations and codes of practice
\ngoverning the operation of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body
\nin greater detail.<\/p>\n
\nestablish the Fair Pay Agreement Adult Social Care Negotiating Body
\nwill be brought forward in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\nstaff representatives<\/p>\n
\non consulting with staff or unions about surveillance
\ntechnology.<\/p>\n
\nthe Employment Rights Bill \u2013 only referred to in Next Steps
\ndocument.<\/p>\n
\nthat there will be a consultation on workplace surveillance
\ntechnologies and associated union and staff consultation
\nprovisions. It remains to be seen how this may tie into any future
\nreforms on the regulation of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n
\nright to be offered suitable alternative employment (if available)
\nonce they inform their employer of their pregnancy or if their
\nexpected date of childbirth was less than 18 months ago.<\/p>\n
\npowers to introduce regulations to cover other dismissals (which
\nare not redundancies) during pregnancy, maternity leave or
\nfollowing a return to work. Protection will also apply to other
\nforms of family leave such as adoption leave, shared parental
\nleave, neonatal care leave and bereaved partners’ paternity
\nleave.<\/p>\n
\nan amendment confirms they will specify the required notices to
\nemployees, the evidence employers must provide and any additional
\nprocedures to be followed.<\/p>\n
\nban dismissals of women who are pregnant, on maternity leave, and
\nduring a six month return to work period, except in specific
\ncircumstances. Reflecting this, a consultation has opened on when
\ndismissal of pregnant women and new mothers will still be allowed
\nand when the protections should start and end. The government is
\nalso consulting on whether other new parents should be protected.
\nConsultation closes on 15 January 2026.<\/p>\n
\nregulations.<\/p>\n
\nmeasures will take effect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\ndismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers<\/a><\/p>\n
\nstarted for family rights?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nbereavement leave unless an employee’s child dies under the age
\nof 18 or is stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy whereby statutory
\nparental bereavement leave and pay may apply. There is also a right
\nto unpaid reasonable time off for family and dependants in an
\nemergency. There is no entitlement to leave for pregnancy loss that
\ntakes place before 24 weeks.<\/p>\n
\nthe power to introduce a day 1 right to at least one week of
\nbereavement leave for employees. Regulations will specify the
\nnecessary relationship with the deceased in order to qualify but we
\nassume this is likely to follow the definition used in time off for
\ndependants. Unlike parental bereavement leave, this will not be
\npaid. The new right to bereavement leave also includes pregnancy
\nloss that occurs before 24 weeks of pregnancy. The government has
\nlaunched a consultation seeking views on how to shape this right,
\nwhich closes on 15 January 2026.<\/p>\n
\nset out the precise detail of this right, with the measures
\nexpected to take effect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\nleave including pregnancy loss before 24 weeks<\/a><\/p>\n
\nstarted for family rights?<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\none year to be eligible for parental leave.<\/p>\n
\nof service requirement for parental leave.<\/p>\n
\nchange will take effect in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\nrequires employees to have been employed for 26 weeks, assessed 15
\nweeks before the expected birth week.<\/p>\n
\nof service requirement for paternity leave.<\/p>\n
\nchange will take effect in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\npaternity leave and pay if they take shared parental leave and pay
\nbefore exhausting their paternity leave entitlements.<\/p>\n
\nto take paternity leave and pay even after they have taken shared
\nparental leave and pay.<\/p>\n
\nthe Roadmap, we expect this change to take place in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\nstarted for family rights?
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nemployers to take steps relating to employees with menopause.<\/p>\n
\nemployers with 250+ employees to produce and publish menopause
\naction plans as part of an Equality Action Plan. The regulations
\nwill include specific penalties for not doing so.<\/p>\n
\ndetailed requirements and how often plans must be published, but
\nthis cannot be more than every 12 months. The Roadmap indicates
\nthese measures will be introduced on a voluntary basis in April
\n2026, before coming into force in 2027.<\/p>\n
\ninvisible symptoms<\/a><\/p>\n
\nfour of sickness, and employees need to be earning above the weekly
\nlower earnings limit (currently \u00a3123) to qualify.<\/p>\n
\n1 of sickness and payable for the first 3 Qualifying Days of
\nsickness. In addition, the lower earnings limit will be removed,
\nmeaning that all eligible employees, regardless of earnings, will
\nbe entitled to SSP. Those earning less than the lower earnings
\nlimit (currently \u00a3123 a week) will become entitled to SSP at
\na rate of 80% of weekly earnings.<\/p>\n
\nby further regulations. The Roadmap indicates that this will take
\neffect in April 2026.<\/p>\n
\nstatus: people are either self-employed, workers or employees.<\/p>\n
\ndocument discusses plans to move to a two-tier system, removing the
\ndistinction between ’employees’ and ‘workers’. This
\nwas not part of the Employment Rights Bill.<\/p>\n
\nthe consultation on employment status will be published by the end
\nof 2025 but this is still awaited.<\/p>\n
\nrecords demonstrating compliance with holiday entitlement and pay
\n(except for employment businesses).<\/p>\n
\nspecific obligation on all employers to keep records demonstrating
\ncompliance with holiday entitlement (including the amount of leave
\nand pay). There’s no set format for these records, but they
\nmust be kept for six years and failure to comply will be a criminal
\noffence punishable with (potentially unlimited) fines.<\/p>\n
\nof when this new obligation will come into force.<\/p>\n
\nApril each year. The rate is set by the government, based on
\nrecommendations made by the Low Pay Commission. The NLW does not
\napply to under 21s. There is a lower hourly minimum wage for 18-20
\nyear olds.<\/p>\n
\ndealt with in the Employment Rights Bill. However, in April 2025
\nthe NLW increased by 6.7% to \u00a312.21 and the 18-20 minimum
\nwage rate increased by 16.3% to \u00a310.<\/p>\n
\n2026 to \u00a312.71 for the NLW and \u00a310.85 for 18 to 20 year
\nolds. The government remains committed to phasing out the 18-20
\nrate altogether, so that all over-18’s will eventually qualify
\nfor the NLW.<\/p>\n
\nThere is no legal definition of “internship” or
\n“work experience” and an individual’s employment
\nstatus will determine what pay they are entitled to and what rights
\nthey have.<\/p>\n
\nremains committed to banning unpaid internships (unless they are
\npart of an educational or training course) and launched a Call for
\nEvidence, which closed on 9 October 2025.<\/p>\n
\nOctober 2025.<\/p>\n
\ninternships make a difference?<\/a><\/p>\n
\nOctober 2024 which required employers to pass all qualifying tips
\non to workers. Employers are also required to introduce a written
\ntips policy, setting out how tips are allocated.<\/p>\n
\nlaw by requiring employers to consult with trade union or elected
\nrepresentatives or (if none) workers directly, before producing the
\nfirst version of their written tips policy and when reviewing it.
\nAny tips policy will need to be reviewed every three years from
\nwhen it was implemented. Employers will also be required to make
\navailable an anonymised summary of feedback received in
\nconsultation.<\/p>\n
\nconsultation on these measures is expected in winter 2025 or early
\n2026 and this is yet to start. The measures are then expected to
\ntake effect in October 2026.<\/p>\n
\numbrella companies can deprive workers of employment rights,
\ndistort competition in the labour market, and cause significant tax
\nloss.<\/p>\n
\ncompanies (by amendment of the Employment Agencies Act) which will
\nbe the gateway to further regulation (subject to consultation).
\nStatutory regulation will bring umbrella companies within the
\nregulation of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (to then
\npass to the Fair Work Agency when established).<\/p>\n
\nwill take place at the end of 2025 but this is still awaited, with
\nthe measures then taking effect in 2027.<\/p>\n
\nwithin three months of the act complained of (e.g. dismissal,
\ndiscrimination, deduction from wages).<\/p>\n
\ntribunal claims will be extended from three to six months. This
\nwill apply to all types of claims, including discrimination and
\nunfair dismissal (although curiously it does not currently apply to
\nbreach of contract claims \u2013 this seems to be an oversight so
\nmay be corrected).<\/p>\n
\nexpected to take effect in October 2026.<\/p>\n