Read on for our monthly digest for employers on upcoming employment law changes and key, recent employment tribunal cases.
Employment Rights Bill: Key Summary
The UK Government introduced the Employment Rights Bill on 10 October 2024, marking what is set to be a significant shift in workers’ rights. You can read our summary of the Bill here.
Expanding on the information contained within the Bill, a number of official factsheets have now been published by the Government, covering key areas of reform. Our summary of the factsheets are here.
The Government has also launched initial consultations, feedback from which may result in amendments to the Bill’s provisions. Key areas of the consultation include collective redundancy practices, zero-hours contracts, industrial relations, and statutory sick pay adjustments. The consultations close in early December 2024.
National Minimum Wage 2025
The UK Government has announced it has accepted the Low Pay Commission’s (LPC) recommendations for National Minimum Wage (NMW) and National Living Wage (NLW) rates, set to come into effect from 1 April 2025.
From April 2025, the NLW for workers aged 21 and over will rise to £12.21 per hour, a 6.7% increase. For younger workers, the NMW will see substantial raises, with the 18-20 age group rate increasing by 16.3% to £10.00 per hour, and the 16-17 age group and apprentice rates both going up by 18% to £7.55 per hour. The accommodation offset rate, an allowable deduction for employers providing accommodation, will also increase by 6.7% to £10.66 per day.
Read our full summary here.
Allocation of Tips
The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, effective from 1 October 2024, governs the distribution of tips, gratuities, and service charges paid by customers from this date onwards. Employers are now required to allocate these payments fairly and transparently and to pay them in full by the end of the month following the tip’s receipt.
The Government’s Code of Practice provides guidance on these provisions and offers solutions for potential issues. Employers should review their tipping practices to ensure compliance.
Employees who believe their employer is not adhering to the Act have up to 12 months to file a claim with the Employment Tribunal, which can award up to £5,000 for financial losses.
Workplace Harassment
British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd & King v Finn
The claimant, an electrician, faced workplace harassment and subsequent unfair dismissal. Working in a predominantly male environment, he experienced a hostile incident in 2019 with a colleague, Mr King, who called him a “bald c**t” and threatened violence. Although this incident led to a warning for Mr King, a subsequent threat in 2021 compelled the claimant to raise concerns, culminating in his dismissal for allegedly fabricating a police report about his colleague’s conduct. The claimant brought a number of claims against his employer, BBMC; for wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, detriment, harassment and victimisation.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled in the claimant’s favour, affirming that the derogatory language about his baldness constituted sex-related harassment. The Tribunal found that Mr King’s words were aimed at violating the claimant’s dignity, creating a hostile and degrading environment, particularly given baldness is a predominantly male trait. Therefore, the harassment was inherently related to the claimant’s sex.
BBMC appealed, arguing that baldness could not be inherently related to sex, as women can also experience it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected this, ruling that harassment provisions under the Equality Act 2010 do not require the characteristic (in this case, baldness) to be exclusive to one gender. Instead, it recognised that baldness primarily affects men, thus supporting the Tribunal’s initial finding.
The High Court upheld this decision, stressing that workplace comments, even if perceived as casual “banter,” could constitute harassment if they target protected characteristics.
Employer Takeaways
This case emphasises the legal risks of disregarding seemingly minor but targeted insults. Derogatory remarks about physical characteristics closely associated with a particular sex, even if not exclusive, may constitute harassment. Employers should ensure anti-harassment policies and training cover such scenarios, reinforcing a respectful workplace environment to prevent discrimination claims.
Discrimination
Ms K Hibbert v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Mrs Hibbert was a safeguarding sergeant with Thames Valley Police (TVP), who brought claims for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal after her employer withdrew permission for her to run a side business.
Mrs Hibbert, who had 20 years of exemplary service, managed a small events business alongside her police role, with prior approval. She was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and PTSD, and occupational health recommended the business as a therapeutic outlet. In 2019, following the death of a young person she had been supporting, Mrs Hibbert took medical leave due to stress. During her leave, TVP reviewed her business permission and discovered through social media that she remained active in her events business. TVP then revoked her business interest, arguing it delayed her return to work. Mrs Hibbert’s appeal against this revocation was unsuccessful, and TVP later initiated disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. Although she resigned in January 2020, the conduct process continued until June, when it was dismissed due to procedural errors by TVP.
In August 2020, Mrs Hibbert filed a claim against TVP, asserting that the removal of her business permission deprived her of an essential coping mechanism and failed to accommodate her mental health needs.
The Employment Tribunal ruled in her favour, finding that TVP’s actions constituted disability discrimination. They concluded that TVP had not made reasonable adjustments in light of her disability, as the events business was beneficial to her mental health.
Mrs Hibbert was awarded £1.1 million in compensation, which included £602,570 for future income losses, as medical evidence indicated she could no longer work for the police. A significant portion of the compensation related to her pension loss, which required a “grossing-up” calculation to account for higher tax on the lump-sum payment. This adjustment, unusual in tribunal cases, reflected the specific financial implications of her public sector pension entitlement.
Employer Takeaways
This case underlines the need for careful handling of disability-related adjustments, particularly when therapeutic activities are recommended by medical professionals. Employers should ensure that adjustments are tailored to support employees’ mental health so as to mitigate risks of discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
Need Assistance?
If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.
Author
Founder and Managing Director Anne Morris is a fully qualified solicitor and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.
She is a recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers as a legal expert and delivers Board-level advice on business migration and compliance risk management as well as overseeing the firm’s development of new client propositions and delivery of cost and time efficient processing of applications.
Anne is an active public speaker, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals
