Employment Rights Under the New Government
Your essential guide
The King’s Speech set out the legislative agenda for the new Labour Government to be set out in two draft bills. Employment rights for employees will be enhanced. The reality is that there is no cost to the Treasury in making the planned change but the same cannot be said for employers. Here is your short guide to what will be coming to your business in the very near future.
- The right to claim unfair dismissal will become a ‘day one’ right instead of the present requirement for a two year qualifying period. This leaves open the question of the residual purpose of probationary periods and whether dismissal may yet be possible in that trial window.
- Parental leave will also become a day one right along with a statutory right to bereavement leave.
- The practice known as ‘fire and rehire’ which occurs when contractual terms need to be changed but are not agreed and are thus imposed unilaterally will become unlawful. Realistically this is a relatively rare phenomena and there is already a Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement. That said, the plan is to eradicate this practice.
- It will also become unlawful to dismiss a female within 6 months of return from maternity leave. It is assumed that redundancy will still be a fair reason to dismiss within this period.
- There is also a plan for a single enforcement body to enforce workers’ rights and another plan to extend the time limit for bringing tribunal claims from 3 to 6 months.
- There is a clear commitment to ban what are called ‘exploitative zero hours contracts’ and a change to the existing flexible working law to make it a default position subject only to a reasonably feasible test.
- Finally, there is a pledge to address trade union law to ‘strengthen the worker voice’. This includes changing collective bargaining rights, the repeal of anti-strike legislation, a right of access to the workplace for unions and a duty to inform workers that they have a right to join a union. Whether or not you already have existing trade union relationships, this is a significant change in the landscape of industrial relations.
Discrimination of the HR Director at the Royal Mint
The HRD suffered from a disability (depression, anxiety and ADHD). She made multiple attempts to resign from her post including one incident where she ‘exploded’ after a Board meeting and had an ‘emotional meltdown’. The CEO did not accept the resignations and understood that the HRD was unwell. Curiously the Royal Mint did not ‘pause to gain some proper informed medical advice concerning the disabilities, the impact on the HRD’s behaviour and prognosis’. The final resignation came in June 2022 when the HRD told the CEO that she was resigning to pursue more lucrative interim work opportunities in London. Then the HRD changed her mind, but the CEO would not allow the resignation to be rescinded having already started the search for a replacement. The tribunal concluded that the HRD had been discriminated for a reason arising in consequence of her disability by denying her request to rescind a resignation that she had submitted whilst grappling with mental health conditions. The Royal Mint’s defence was that it had a legitimate aim in requiring a stable team of senior leaders, but the tribunal rejected this and said the aim was disproportionate to the discriminatory effect.
The HRD’s lawyer said, “the lesson is not to make assumptions about someone’s disability, and especially not to ignore what an employee is telling you”. Your author makes this simple point; if your employee has a disability and you know about it, always seek expert medical advice. An occupational health report would almost certainly have supported the legitimate aim defence.
