Workforce Changes Impacting Unfair Dismissal Claims

Unfair dismissal compensation is about to become unlimited. Not capped at £118k. Not capped at a year's salary. Unlimited. If you're hiring in the UK right now and think "we've got the probation period, plus the two-year rule covers us"... I have news for you. From 1st January 2027, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal drops from two years to six months. And here's the bit most founders haven't clocked: Anyone you hired on or before 1st July this year hits six months by 1st January. Which means they're protected from day one of the new rules. The person you onboarded last month? Protected in January. Your existing team members with six months plus service? Also protected in January. This isn't a "new hires only" problem. It's an "everyone on your payroll" problem. So the old playbook — loose probation, vague expectations, decide at the last minute — is now a genuine financial risk. With no ceiling on the payout if you get it wrong. Here's what a clean process looks like: → Shorten your probation period. Most UK contracts say six months. That now lines up exactly with the legal threshold — zero buffer. Three months with an option to extend by one is becoming the sensible standard. → Set 30, 60 and 90 day objectives. Written down. Shared with the individual on day one, not discovered by them in month four. → Be clear on expectations during onboarding. Documented. If it only exists in your head, it doesn't exist. → Hold regular reviews throughout. Documented again. A tribunal doesn't care what you meant. It cares what you can show. → Give feedback early and course correct together. Support first. If there's no improvement, decide on next steps — don't just hope. → Make your decision by month five at the latest. And watch the maths: statutory notice gets added to service, so the real threshold arrives sooner than you think. None of this is about making it easier to exit people. It's about being fair, clear and honest with someone from the moment they join — which, funnily enough, is also just good leadership. The law is simply catching up with what good managers were doing anyway. HR folks: how are you preparing your managers for January? #HR #employmentlaw #hrchanges #leadership #smb

🚨 Day-one unfair dismissal rights are coming 🚨 From 2027, UK employees will no longer need two years’ service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. This changes how you hire, onboard, and manage from the very start. Probation periods, performance tracking, and manager training can’t be an afterthought—they’ll be your first line of defence against disputes. Here’s how to get ahead: 1️⃣ Redesign probation  - Set clear review points (3–9 months is current guidance).  - If dismissal is needed, follow the new light-touch process: meeting → right to be accompanied → written outcome. 2️⃣ Train managers early  - Equip them to manage performance from day one.  - Emphasise documentation.  - Remember: redundancy is never “light-touch.” 3️⃣ Update onboarding  - Build in day-one entitlements (statutory leave, sick pay).  - Collect feedback early to spot issues before they escalate. 4️⃣ Tighten documentation  - Store probation reviews and dismissal steps securely.  - Be prepared to provide written reasons on request. 👉 The two-year “low risk” window is closing. Businesses that adapt now will not only stay compliant but also create fairer, more transparent workplaces—the kind that attract and retain top talent. 🔜 Tomorrow, I’ll share practical tips on navigating a world without zero-hours contracts—and how to keep flexibility while ensuring fairness. #EmploymentLaw #HRLeadership #FutureOfWork #WorkplaceCulture #EmploymentRights

2026 will expose every BAD manager in the UK. Yes, the law is changing, but the way people are managed is about to face a very different level of scrutiny. The Employment Rights Bill gives employees stronger protections much earlier in their employment, and it raises the bar on how organisations handle conversations, decisions and behaviour. This isn’t subtle. It will be felt. Quick recap on what’s coming: 2026 • Day-one paternity and parental leave • Higher penalties for collective redundancy failures • A new enforcement body with real authority • Limits on fire and rehire • Stronger duties to prevent harassment • More time for employees to bring claims 2027 • Day-one unfair dismissal rights • Reforms to zero-hours, guaranteed hours and umbrella companies The simple summary: employees gain earlier protection and companies get less space for poor practice. This isn’t a legal issue. It’s about how well managers actually manage. If conversations are avoided, if documentation is weak, if decisions rely on instinct rather than clarity, these changes will expose the gaps quickly. Updating policies won’t fix that on its own. Here’s what you should be doing next: → Review what really happens in the organisation, not what the handbook says → Train managers before they’re forced into situations they can’t handle → Refresh contracts and worker classifications so they’re ready for the new standards → Communicate early so no one is surprised when the changes land → Build the habit of documenting decisions consistently and calmly What matters the most is doing right by your people. That means supporting employees and managers equally and creating a fair, consistent environment for both. This Bill is a good thing. It’s a wake-up call to raise standards and fix issues that should have been addressed long ago. The organisations that treat it this way will come out stronger. The ones that don’t will be forced to catch up later.

Everyone thinks employment law changes gradually. I disagree. This year proved employment legislation can reshape payroll costs overnight. 28 more reforms are scheduled that will fundamentally alter people management across the UK. What already happened while most teams were focused elsewhere: The Minimum Wage Reality: → National Living Wage jumped £0.77 to £12.21/hour (21+) → 18-20 year olds received £1.40 increase to £10.00/hour (biggest increase ever) → 3.2 million workers affected immediately The Tax Calculation Changes: → National Insurance rate: 13.8% → 15% → Earnings threshold dropped from £9,100 to £5,000 → Typical cost increase: £2,100-£2,270 per full-time NLW employee New Family Support Requirements: → Neonatal care leave launched with day 1 entitlement → Up to 12 weeks leave for NICU parents → Statutory pay requires 26 weeks' service + £125/week minimum earnings → 60,000+ families now eligible annually Restructuring Process Changes: → Fire & rehire penalties increased 25% on unfair dismissal compensation → Maximum punishment: 112.5 days uncapped pay per person → Tribunal process overhauled with digital-only filing requirements The 28 reforms approaching include: → Day 1 unfair dismissal rights (subject to parliamentary approval). → Mandatory guaranteed hours contracts. → Extended tribunal claims timeline (3→6 months to file). These aren't isolated policy adjustments. Each change builds towards a completely different employment landscape where flexibility costs more and compliance requirements multiply. Organisations treating these as individual updates rather than systematic transformation will face significant gaps when the Employment Rights Bill provisions take effect. The mathematics of being unprepared: → One improper dismissal under new penalties = 112.5 days compensation maximum. → One payroll miscalculation with new NI thresholds = potential HMRC scrutiny. → One missed neonatal leave entitlement = tribunal exposure and operational disruption. Which of these 2025 changes has created the biggest adjustment challenge for your organisation?

The unfair dismissal clock is ticking — and it started the day you hired them. Here's what catches most small business owners off guard about the Employment Rights Act: The new unfair dismissal protections (dropping the qualifying period from 2 years to 6 months) will apply to people you've ALREADY employed. Not just future hires. Your current team too. Why does this matter? Because the probation periods, performance management, and documentation you have in place right now probably aren't robust enough to withstand an unfair dismissal claim at 6 months. Let's be honest — most small businesses I work with have either: ❌ No probation process at all ❌ A probation that's just a date in the diary with no structure ❌ Performance conversations that happen verbally with nothing written down That worked fine when you had a 2-year buffer. It won't work with a 6-month one. What you need now: ✅ A proper probation process (that you actually use) ✅ Regular feedback — documented ✅ Clear performance expectations from day one ✅ A paper trail that shows fairness, not just frustration The goal isn't to become paranoid or bureaucratic. It's to protect your business while still being a great place to work. You can absolutely do both. But you do need to act now. Need help getting ready before these changes land? Drop me a message or book a call — I'm already working with local businesses to prepare, and I'd be happy to help you too.

Employment Rights Act 2025 - Highly paid employees (and Footballers) As the bill bell tolled and it became an Act, the cap of about £119,000 on unfair dismissal was removed: from 1 January 2027. For unfairly dismissed low paid workers who are out of work for longer than a year they will receive their full compensation and will not be cut off after 52 weeks. But I am interested in the ramifications for the highly paid. Unfair dismissal is different because compensation can be paid not for a substantive wrong, but for a procedural one. Will Polkey still deliver justice if the a very substantial sum which is a percentage of a huge sum including LTIPs / Bonuses is awarded for a procedural wrong? Is Polkey still fit for purpose for this cohort? Is the UK now the highest risk place to employ highly paid executives in Europe, rather than the lowest? For example, the Macron scale or the German systems broadly have a cap based on a sliding scale of number of months of compensation that can be awarded related to the size of the employer and length of service of the employee. In the past the City of London could be considered a low risk place to employ the highly paid. Is it still? For employers of the highly paid, is there now a need for a fuller and more rigorous probationary period? The qualifying period will only be six months. Probationary periods become a vital risk mitigation tool for C-suite employees or other high earners. Weak probationary policies now become very high risk. Second, employers will want to look at clear performance metrics in contracts because, the first time, will these employees need to be subjected to performance management processes? Previously, they were, for the most part, merely paid the cap amount of £119,000 and dismissed. There were few processes. Now putting senior and very well-paid employees on PiPs will need to become common place in order to reduce risk. This may be particularly problematic for those whose employment may be price sensitive information and engages wider REMCO issues. Finally, sport has relied on the expiry of a contract as determining the end of the compensation that needs to be paid to a sportsperson, such as a footballer. However, the expiry of a fixed-term contract is a dismissal. That now needs to be fair. Highly paid sportspeople did not bother going to the Employment Tribunal because of the cap. No longer?   Further, if you sign a new footballer into a similar position to another whose contract has expired, is the employer now in the territory of fire and rehire? Automatic unfair dismissal by a new signing? Does that suggest that a PiP will be necessary for this cohort so that tens of footballers heading to the end of their contract will be performance managed? Is this why the normal legislative process requires full consultation? Is one of the most far reaching and immediate results of the ERA to deliver enhanced rights to the very best paid employees in the UK?

Amendments to the Fair Work Act are likely coming and here's what I think employers need to do now. The Government has just introduced the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. I've been reviewing the changes and some of them will require employers to rethink how they approach FWC proceedings if they are passed. Here are the key changes and what I'd suggest you do about each: 1. General Protections claims can now proceed on allegation alone. Previously, if an employer raised a jurisdictional objection (eg. "they resigned, we didn't dismiss them"), the FWC had to determine that issue before listing a conciliation. Under the proposed changes, if someone alleges dismissal, the matter proceeds. The jurisdictional fight only happens if the matter goes to Court. What to do: Accept that more General Protections claims will reach conciliation, even ones you believe have no jurisdictional basis. Budget for this. Consider whether early resolution makes commercial sense, because you won't be able to knock them out at the FWC door anymore. 2. The FWC will be able to bar vexatious litigants. If the FWC dismisses an application as frivolous, vexatious or having no reasonable prospects, it can now order that the applicant needs permission from a presidential member to file again. What to do: If you're dealing with a repeat litigant, keep records. This provision gives you something to point to. 3. Paper-based determinations will be available. If both parties consent and the FWC considers it appropriate, unfair dismissal, unfair termination and unfair deactivation matters can be determined without a conference or hearing. What to do: Think strategically. A paper determination might suit a clear-cut case. But if credibility of witnesses is in issue, you will probably want a hearing. 4. Road transport contractors get expanded access. A new "road contractor high income threshold" will be set by regulation, likely higher than the current $183,100, to account for owner drivers' operating costs. What to do: If you engage owner drivers, watch for the new threshold. The compensation cap will rise with it. The Bill hasn't passed yet, but given the Government's track record on IR reform and the desperate need the FWC has to manage this increased workload beyond measures that it can implement under the current legislation, I suspect it will proceed largely as drafted. What changes are you most concerned/excited about? ---- Like this post? Like 👍 | Comment ✍ | Repost ♻️ | Save 🗄️ #humanresources #pointyendofhr #employmentlaw

I keep asking HR Directors the same question: "When did you last review your onboarding process against the ERA timeline?" The uncomfortable truth is that most haven't. And there are now two deadlines, not one. From 6 April 2026, four rights become Day-One entitlements: PATERNITY LEAVE: Day-One entitlement. The 26-week qualifying period is gone. Budget for 100% take-up from the hire date. PARENTAL LEAVE: Day-One entitlement. Previously required 1 year of service. FLEXIBLE WORKING: Day-One right, with 2 requests per year instead of 1. That doubles the tribunal exposure for every line manager handling these requests. SSP: Payable from Day One. No more 3-day waiting period. No more lower earnings threshold. Every employee qualifies. From 1 January 2027, unfair dismissal changes fundamentally: QUALIFYING PERIOD: Drops from 2 years to 6 months. Anyone hired from July 2026 onwards will have protection from January 2027. COMPENSATION CAP: Abolished entirely. The current cap of £118,223 disappears. Senior exits will carry unlimited tribunal exposure. Most probation processes I review were designed for a world where new employees couldn't bring a claim for two years. Informal check-ins at Month 3. A probation review at Month 6, often late, often undocumented. The April 2026 changes mean your family leave and flexible working policies need updating now. The January 2027 changes mean your probation and performance management processes need to be airtight before any employee hired from July 2026 reaches the 6-month mark. Two timelines. Two sets of preparation. Are you ready for both? #ERA2025 #EmploymentLaw #HRStrategy #BoardroomBriefing #sdg

COURT OF APPEAL AWARDS 36 MONTHS' SALARY FOR WRONGFUL AND UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling awarding 36 months’ salary to a dismissed employee, reinforcing the courts' departure from the traditional or normal measure of damages in cases of wrongful and unfair dismissal. 🔍 Key Takeaways: • The dismissal was found to be both wrongful and unfair, stemming from systemic failures in the employer’s centralized procurement system (SAP), not the employee’s conduct. • The disciplinary process relied on conflicting internal policies, and the employee was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan despite meeting performance benchmarks. • The Court emphasized that disciplinary action must be grounded in enforceable codes, not administrative policies lacking procedural safeguards. • The award was justified due to the unconscionable nature of the dismissal and the scarcity of comparable roles in the labour market. 📚 Why this matters: This case sets a powerful precedent for enhanced damages where internal inefficiencies and procedural irregularities unfairly penalize employees. HR teams and legal advisors should revisit their disciplinary frameworks to ensure clarity, fairness, and compliance with statutory obligations.  💡Lesson for Employers, HR Teams, and Legal Advisors This case is more than a cautionary tale. It is a clear signal that Zambian courts are holding employers to a higher standard of accountability in disciplinary matters. The traditional notice pay or normal measure of damages is no longer the default remedy. Courts are consistently awarding enhanced damages where dismissals are procedurally flawed, substantively unfair, or rooted in internal dysfunction. Here is what this means in practice: • ✅ Policies must be enforceable, not just well-written Internal guidelines that lack legal grounding or contradict the disciplinary code will not protect an employer in court. • 🔍 Procedural fairness is non-negotiable Disciplinary processes must follow clear steps, offer the employee a fair hearing, and be free from bias or ambiguity. • 📊 Performance management must be evidence-based Placing employees on improvement plans without objective justification especially when they meet performance targets can be seen as punitive and unfair. • ⚖️ Legal compliance must align with operational realities Systemic failures (like procurement bottlenecks) cannot be used to justify disciplinary action. Employers must distinguish between individual accountability and organizational shortcomings. • 🧭 Strategic HR is proactive, not reactive Regular audits of internal policies, training for line managers, and legal reviews of disciplinary procedures are essential to mitigate risk. • 💰 The cost of getting it wrong is rising Awards of 36 months’ salary are no longer exceptional. They reflect the courts’ growing emphasis on justice, proportionality, and the real-world impact of wrongful and unfair dismissals.

Lessons from the Industrial Court: A Costly Reminder on Fair Dismissals 😩💸💸 The Industrial Court recently ruled on a case (Award No. 349 of 2025) that highlights critical lessons for HR and employers. The case involved Golda Fiona, an employee who was dismissed by MCD Back Office Sdn Bhd. The company claimed redundancy, but the court saw things differently. Here’s what happened and what we can learn from it. What Went Wrong? ⛓️💥😟 The company argued that the dismissal was due to internal restructuring. But when the court examined the evidence, cracks started to appear: • No proof of work redistribution after the dismissal • Emails showed the termination decision was made before redundancy was even considered • The company hired two new employees around the same time, contradicting claims of financial struggles When redundancy didn’t hold up, the company shifted gears and claimed poor performance and insubordination. But: • The termination letter made no mention of these issues • There were no documented warnings or performance improvement plans • No evidence of underperformance was provided The court saw through it. It ruled that the dismissal was unfair, premeditated, and lacked just cause. The Consequences The company was ordered to pay a total of RM220,000 in compensation, covering back wages, bonuses, and reinstatement compensation—all to be paid within 30 days. Key Takeaways for HR and Employers 1. Redundancy must be backed by evidence – Financial reports, restructuring plans, and workload redistribution need to be properly documented. 2. Performance-based termination requires due process – Warnings, improvement plans, and KPIs must be in place before taking action. 3. Retaliatory or pretextual dismissals won’t hold up – Terminations must be genuinely tied to business needs, not hidden agendas. 4. Follow due process – Employees must be informed, given explanations, and allowed to respond before being dismissed. 5. HR must challenge weak justifications – Internal communication and documentation are crucial. In this case, emails contradicted the employer’s claims. 6. Legal and financial risks are real – A poorly handled termination can lead to huge payouts and damage employer credibility. This case is a wake-up call for businesses. Dismissing employees without proper justification isn’t just unfair—it’s expensive. 💸