1. Employment Rights Act – Changes Introduced from April 2026

An updated implementation timeline was published by the government on 3rd February 2026.  This has altered the date that some of the reforms will come into force, specifically those revolving around variation of contractual terms, and fire and rehire provisions, which will now be implemented in January 2027 (previously October 2026). The roadmap also confirms which changes will be introduced on 6th April this year, including provisions on collective redundancy, paternity leave and statutory sick pay.  The Government has started a consultation on the changes, seeking views on which expenses, benefits and shift changes the protections should be covering.

Enhanced Whistleblowing Protection for Sexual Harassment

From 6 April 2026, disclosures about sexual harassment can constitute protected whistleblowing disclosures. Workers who report sexual harassment in the public interest will therefore be protected from detriment and unfair dismissal, without having to characterise the disclosure under another category (such as health and safety).

Changes to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)

From 6 April 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces significant reforms to Statutory Sick Pay, aimed at widening access and providing earlier financial support during sickness absence.

Key changes:

  1. SSP payable from day one: The current 3 unpaid waiting days are removed. SSP will be payable from the first full day of sickness absence;
  1. Removal of the Lower Earnings Limit: Workers will no longer need to meet a minimum earnings threshold to qualify. This extends SSP eligibility to low paid, part time and casual workers;
  1. New calculation method: SSP will be paid at the lower of 80% of average weekly earnings, or the statutory flat rate (set to rise to £123.25 per week from April 2026); and
  1. Transitional protections: Those already receiving SSP before 6 April 2026 will be protected from any reduction in pay for the remainder of a continuous period of sickness absence.

Fair Work Agency 

From 7 April 2026, the Fair Work Agency will be established under the Employment Rights Act 2025 as a new single enforcement body for key employment rights in the UK and will consolidate the functions of existing enforcement bodies.  It will have powers to investigate noncompliance, conduct inspections, issue civil penalties, and take enforcement action in respect of breaches of employment law.  Over time, its remit will expand to include enforcement of additional rights such as holiday pay and SSP. The introduction of the FWA significantly strengthens how existing rights are enforced and how employers interact with regulators.

  1. ACAS Early Conciliation – Extension to 12 Weeks

ACAS is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service which helps to resolve disputes between parties, thus avoiding the need to raise an Employment Tribunal claim. From 1 December 2025, the maximum ACAS Early Conciliation period was extended from 6 weeks to 12 weeks under the Employment Tribunals Regulations 2025.

  1. Other ongoing government consultations:
  1. EMPLOYMENT CASE:  Employee Who Slept in Sauna Overnight Was Treated Unfavourably: Ms S Burns v Gitpod GMBH (and others)

Ms Burns was employed as Vice President of Engineering at Gitpod, a technology company. She had disclosed that she had ADHD and dyslexia and had requested workplace support which was not provided. Her dismissal followed a teambuilding event in Austria at which she became intoxicated, lost her hotel room key and slept overnight in a hotel sauna. Gitpod dismissed her on the basis that the incident had undermined confidence in her leadership.

Ms Burns brought claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims did not succeed. However, the Employment Tribunal upheld her claim of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, finding that her forgetfulness and decisionmaking difficulties were linked to her ADHD and that Gitpod had dismissed her for conduct arising from that disability without properly considering or implementing reasonable adjustments.

The Tribunal concluded that Gitpod had treated Ms Burns unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability. A separate remedy hearing was ordered to determine compensation.

  1. EMPLOYMENT CASE:  How Cold is Too Cold to Work?  Leila Ayad v WL Retail Ltd

The Employment Tribunal in this case held that the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures relating to workplace health and safety. Ms Ayad, a café worker, raised concerns via a staff WhatsApp group that temperatures inside the café had fallen to around 12°C because the door was kept open, which she believed endangered staff health and safety. The Tribunal found that these complaints constituted qualifying protected disclosures made in the public interest, and that her subsequent reduction in hours and dismissal were causally linked to those disclosures.

The employer was found liable for automatic unfair dismissal, detriment for whistleblowing, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and related breaches, with an ACAS uplift applied.

  1. EMPLOYMENT CASE:  Dismissal of Senior Executive: Zen Internet Ltd v Stobart [2025] EAT 153

Zen Internet Ltd is a broadband and technology provider. Mr Stobart was appointed as Chairman, and later CEO Like all employees, Mr Stobart was subject to Zen Internet’s grievance and disciplinary policies, which were incorporated into the company’s HR documents.

Following a number of years with poor financial performance between 2020 and 2022, Mr Tang sent an unambiguous email to Mr Stobart stating he had “lost confidence” in his ability to lead the company to profit and that as a result, Mr Stobart would move to a non-executive role with substantially lower remuneration. On 17th March 2023, the company’s board convened a meeting during which Mr Stobart’s employment was terminated.

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal determined that failure to achieve sustainable profit for the company was a fair and genuine reason to dismiss someone in Mr Stobart’s position. However, the dismissal was held to be procedurally unfair, as no steps were taken by the board/company in line with their disciplinary procedure, or the ACAS Code of Practice, prior to his dismissal.  The Tribunal concluded that a fair process would have led to dismissal in any event, so applied the Polkey Principle to reduce the overall sum awarded. Compensation was capped at two months of loss, based on the time the Tribunal said it would have taken to carry out a full disciplinary process. The Respondent appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal on fairness but allowed the appeal based on the application of the Polkey principle.  On this point, the EAT held that the relevant period in which the Polkey deduction should apply is when concerns are first apparent to the Respondent, which was on 24th February 2023 in this case and not on the date of dismissal.

This case is valuable guidance on complying with policy with dismissing a senior employee, as well as the potential reduction to compensation if the dismissal was procedurally unfair but inevitable.

For more information on the changes outlined above, or advice on any other employment law matter, please contact Laura or Holly in our Employment Team – employment@mcmsolicitors.co.uk

Legal waiver:
The information contained in this article is for general use is not intended to be comprehensive or a replacement for obtaining specific legal advice about your situation. Using the information without consulting us or another professional adviser is at your own risk. McKee Campbell Morrison Ltd accept no responsibility and gives no representations or warranties, express or implied, that any of the information and materials on this site is complete, accurate or free from errors or omissions.