National Minimum Wage Increase from April 2026
The government has confirmed new National Minimum Wage rates for pay periods starting on or after 1 April 2026. The main adult rate for workers aged 21 and over will rise to £12.71 per hour. The 18 to 20 rate will increase to £10.85 per hour. The 16 to 17 rate and the apprentice rate will both move to £8.00 per hour. These rates apply from the first pay reference period that begins on or after 1 April, not from the date the announcement is made.
Employment Rights Bill Update
The Business Secretary has signalled a large programme of consultations to shape the regulations that will give effect to the Employment Rights Bill. The message is that headline reforms such as limits on zero-hour contracts and day-one unfair dismissal rights are not being rowed back, but the mechanics will be worked through after Royal Assent.
The department intends to consult across multiple strands rather than one omnibus paper, so engagement will come in phases once the Bill becomes law. Consultation is where government tests options and receives evidence before drafting the binding rules. Departments publish proposals and questions, then evaluate responses alongside impact and equality assessments. Outcomes are set out in a formal response. Draft regulations are then laid before Parliament, with any statutory Codes consulted on and approved in parallel. Duties only start when the final instruments are made and commencement is stated.
Employer Takeaways
The headline reforms are set, but the outcome for employers will be decided in the detail. Scope, thresholds and process will be written into regulations and Codes, where definitions, carve-outs and transitional rules can raise or reduce the workload. Expect a series of consultations on predictable working, limits on zero hours, day-one unfair dismissal, union measures, family rights and enforcement. This is the point to supply evidence that shows what is workable, with real examples and draft wording that holds up in practice.
Nothing new opens until the Bill is law. After Royal Assent, papers will arrive in tranches, then draft regulations and Codes, with staged go-lives through 2026 and into 2027 once commencement is set. Planning can start now without locking in language. Map where the proposals touch contracts, rostering, HRIS, payroll and training, and identify policies that will need revision, but wait for the government’s response and draft instruments before finalising text. When consultations do open, focus submissions on issues that genuinely affect cost or operations and use neutral data such as workforce profiles, scheduling models, re-engagement rates and grievance trends. Offer proposed wording rather than simple objections.
In practical terms, nominate an internal lead and keep a short tracker of topics, deadlines and ownership. Pull together a light evidence pack so you can respond quickly when papers land. Draft outline positions on predictable hours, conversion from zero hours, day-one dismissal rights and family leave so stakeholders are aligned before the formal questions arrive.
Whistleblowing
Rice v Wicked Vision; Barton Turns v Treadwell
Two joined appeals tested whether an employee who brings an automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing under section 103A ERA can also bring a detriment complaint under section 47B where the alleged detriment is the dismissal itself. Earlier decisions had pulled in different directions when applying section 47B(2), which excludes detriment claims where the detriment “amounts to dismissal”. The parties also disputed how far the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgment in Timis v Osipov controlled the outcome. The Court listed the cases together and treated the Osipov reasoning as the framework unless a higher court or Parliament said otherwise.
The Court of Appeal held that a whistleblowing detriment claim can proceed where the complained-of detriment is the dismissal, provided the detriment claim is brought against a co-worker and the employer’s liability arises vicariously under section 47B(1B). The Court made clear it did not agree with the Osipov construction but considered itself bound by it. Section 47B(2) therefore does not block a co-worker detriment claim even if the detriment is the dismissal. Both claimants were allowed to pursue their detriment claims alongside their section 103A dismissal claims. The Court noted that conflicting interpretations now exist across multiple levels and flagged that only the Supreme Court or legislative amendment will resolve the position.
Employer Takeaways
The whistleblowing route now runs on two parallel tracks. A claimant can pursue an automatic unfair dismissal claim against the employer and a detriment claim based on the dismissal against individual managers, with vicarious liability attaching to the employer. Case handling should reflect that exposure from the first point a protected disclosure is alleged. Keep a clear record of who took each step, what evidence they saw and the reasons given at each stage.
Training for decision makers should cover protected disclosures, detriments and the separate liabilities that flow from sections 103A and 47B. Where several managers are involved in a dismissal, document their roles carefully to reduce personal risk and to evidence that reasonable steps were taken. Wording in indemnities and D&O arrangements may need a review given the increased likelihood of individual respondents.
Movement at a higher level is possible. Until a further appellate decision or legislative change lands, plan on the basis that a detriment claim based on dismissal can run in tandem with a section 103A claim. Litigation strategy, reserves and settlement discussions should take account of the additional heads of claim and the involvement of individual managers.
Reasonable Adjustments
Zen Internet v Stobart
Mr Stobart was Chief Executive of Zen Internet. The company dismissed him for capability without running any process. A tribunal held the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It then limited compensation on a Polkey basis, deciding that even with a proper procedure the outcome would still have been dismissal and that a fair process could have been completed within roughly two months from the date notice was given. Compensation was capped to reflect pay over that two-month window.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the employer’s appeal in part. On Polkey, it held that the tribunal had asked the wrong timing question. The evaluation should not have started on the date of dismissal and worked forward. It should have considered when the capability concerns crystallised, which was more than three weeks earlier, and then assessed how long a fair process would reasonably have taken from that earlier point. A distinct argument that no procedure was needed because of seniority failed. This was not one of the rare cases where an employer can dispense with process due to the role held. A fair capability route was still required.
Employer takeaways
Polkey is not tied to the dismissal date. Where a tribunal is deciding what would have happened, it can look back to when the concerns became concrete and then model a fair process from that point. For senior roles, do not bank on a “position too senior for process” line. Tribunals expect a real procedure unless facts are truly exceptional. For capability cases at executive level, map the timeline carefully, record when issues crystallise, and keep evidence of the steps a fair process would have involved, including meetings, decision and appeal. That record gives you a credible basis for any Polkey submissions and reduces arguments that compensation should run longer than necessary.
Unfair Dismissal
O’Brien v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Ms O’Brien faced allegations that she had not worked contracted hours and had claimed overtime incorrectly. The Trust became aware of concerns in 2018 but did not put them to her until a year later. By that time she had PTSD, which affected her ability to remember events. Following a disciplinary process she was dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected a reasonable adjustments claim that focused on the employer’s failure to speak to her informally and promptly about the allegations.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It held that the tribunal had accepted the delay made it harder for Ms O’Brien to defend herself yet failed to reflect that finding in its analysis of fairness. The decision on unfair dismissal was quashed and sent back for reconsideration. The EAT also held that the reasonable adjustments claim required a fresh look. The relevant alleged failure occurred when the Trust missed the opportunity to speak with her promptly, identified as no later than March 2019. The tribunal must reconsider whether time should be extended on a just and equitable basis.
Employer takeaways
Delay is not a procedural footnote. Where an employer knows about concerns but waits many months before raising them, the employee’s ability to answer the case can be compromised, especially where health or memory is in issue. A fair process depends on timely, specific allegations supported by contemporaneous material. If historic issues surface, record when concerns crystallised, explain any unavoidable delay and consider whether an informal meeting or a focused terms-of-reference letter would help the employee respond. Where disability is in play, assess adjustments early, for example phased interviews, written prompts or access to diaries and rotas, so that recall is not the deciding factor. These steps support a sustainable fairness finding and reduce the risk of a remittal on appeal.
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.
