Welcome to your Quarterly Employment Law Bulletin from Roots HR.
This quarter we update you on…
New statutory rates for 2026
April marks the month each year where changes to statutory rates come into force. Most rate changes take effect from 6th April (to align with the start of the new tax year).
The statutory rates for family leave, sick pay, redundancy and the cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards are, from 6th April 2026, as follows:
| Statutory maternity pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory paternity pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory shared parental pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory adoption pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory parental bereavement pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory neonatal care leave pay | £194.32 per week |
| Statutory sick pay | £123.25 per week |
| Statutory guarantee pay | £41 per day |
| Statutory redundancy pay | £751 per week |
| Maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal * | £123,543 |
*Under Employment Rights Act 2025 changes, due to take effect from January 2027, the cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be removed in its entirety. The figure in this table applies to all dismissals from 6th April 2026 until this change comes into effect.
The average gross weekly earnings required to qualify for the various forms of family leave pay will also increase from £125.00 or more per week, to £129.00 or more per week from 6th April 2026.
The amounts in the table above represent the minimum requirements. They may be replaced by higher payments if the employer chooses to offer more voluntarily or is required to do so under the employee’s contract.
National minimum wage changes from 1st April
Employers can inadvertently end up paying the wrong rate of national minimum wage if they fail to correctly apply the annual increase which takes effect from 1st April each year, or if they fail to realise that an employee has moved into an older age category.
Employers should check their payroll provision to make sure systems reflect the new figures for national minimum wage which took effect from 1st April 2026:
| Category | Rate |
| Aged 21 and above | £12.71 |
| Aged 18-20 | £10.85 |
| Aged under 18 (but above compulsory school leaving age) | £8.00 |
| Apprentices aged under 19 | £8.00 |
| Apprentices aged 19 or over but in the first year of their apprenticeship | £8.00 |
These amounts set out the minimum wages payable. They may be replaced by higher payments if the employer chooses to offer more voluntarily or is required to do so under the employee’s contract.
Employment Rights Act (2025)
The Employment Rights Act 2025 represents one of the most significant reforms to UK employment law in a generation. Its provisions are being introduced in phases, with the first substantive changes taking effect in February and April 2026, requiring employers to review policies, processes and management capability.
The February 2026 changes focused primarily on trade union law and industrial relations. Long‑standing procedural requirements introduced under earlier legislation were repealed or simplified, making lawful industrial action easier to organise and reducing the scope for technical legal challenges. At the same time, protections against dismissal connected to lawful industrial action were strengthened, increasing legal and reputational risk where employers take action during disputes.
The April 2026 changes marked the first major expansion of individual employment rights. Statutory Sick Pay became a day‑one right, with the removal of both the lower earnings limit and the three‑day waiting period, significantly extending entitlement to low‑paid and part‑time workers. Statutory paternity leave and unpaid parental leave also became available from the first day of employment, removing previous qualifying service requirements, although entitlement to statutory pay remains subject to eligibility rules. A new right to Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave was introduced, allowing extended leave following the death of a child’s mother or primary adopter.
April also brought strengthened enforcement and protection mechanisms. The maximum protective award for failures in collective redundancy consultation doubled from 90 to 180 days’ pay, substantially increasing financial exposure where processes are mishandled. Disclosures relating to sexual harassment were brought within the scope of whistleblowing protection, giving workers stronger protection from retaliation. In addition, the newly established Fair Work Agency began operations, consolidating enforcement powers in areas such as sick pay, holiday pay and minimum wage compliance. Employers are also now required to retain adequate holiday pay records for six years.
Although further reforms, including changes to unfair dismissal qualifying periods, will not take effect until 2027, the February and April 2026 measures already require immediate action, particularly in updating policies, training managers and managing risk in employee relations matters.
For further information, watch a recording of our March Employment Law Update webinar.
Neurodiversity awareness: What managers need to know about neurodivergence at work
Neurodiversity Awareness Week took place last month. Its aim is to shift how organisations understand and support neurodivergent individuals.
Public debate around rising diagnoses of conditions such as ADHD and autism continues, with some questioning whether these conditions are being over-diagnosed. Late last year, UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting warned that the rising number of diagnoses risked medicalising ‘normal behaviour’, signalling a growing scepticism in some quarters about the expansion of neurodevelopmental labels.
However, from an employment law perspective, this debate is largely irrelevant. The legal question is not whether a condition is fashionable or contested, but whether an employee is experiencing a disadvantage at work – and what reasonable steps can be taken to address it.
“Neurodivergence” is an umbrella term covering conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. Many individuals with these conditions will meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010: a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, such as communication, concentration or social interaction.
Importantly, a formal diagnosis is not required to trigger legal obligations. Tribunals focus on the impact of the impairment, not the label. This is particularly relevant given long NHS waiting times for assessments. If an employee reports ongoing difficulties, the duty to consider reasonable adjustments may already arise.
Case law reinforces this practical approach. In Sherbourne v N Power, a failure to adjust an open-plan working environment for an employee with Asperger’s syndrome amounted to a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. In Jandu v Marks & Spencer, redundancy selection criteria that disadvantaged a dyslexic employee were found to be unlawful. And in Borg-Neal v Lloyds Bank Plc, a dismissal linked to conduct arising from dyslexia led to a significant discrimination award.
For managers, the key is to focus on impact rather than diagnosis. That means:
- Considering reasonable adjustments early, even where a condition is not formally confirmed
- Using occupational health where appropriate to understand workplace impact
- Training to recognise and respond to neurodivergence
The duty to make adjustments is not unlimited – employers are only required to take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances. However, failing to engage with the issue at all is likely to create legal risk.
For further information, please read our blog post on managing a diverse team.
Dismissing for gross misconduct: lessons from Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue
A recent employment tribunal case shows how employers can get dismissals for gross misconduct wrong.
In Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, an experienced firefighter was dismissed immediately after making a comment described as misogynistic. He said that a woman he rescued looked “haggard for her age.”
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was unfair.
The legal test for a fair dismissal
When an employer dismisses someone for misconduct, they must follow a 3-step test established in a historic tribunal case, BHS v Burchell. The employer must:
- Genuinely believe the employee committed misconduct
- Have reasonable grounds for that belief
- Carry out a reasonable investigation
Even if these are met, the dismissal must still fall within a ‘band of reasonable responses’, meaning it is a decision a reasonable employer could make in the same situation.
Employers must also show that a fair process was followed.
In the case of Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, the employer made several key mistakes:
1. Relying on an expired warning
They used a “Note for File” from five years earlier, where their own policy said this should be ignored after six months.
2. Misusing performance records
They treated Personal Development Plans (PDPs) as evidence of misconduct. However, PDPs are not disciplinary records, and one even described the employee as a high performer.
3. Confusing performance issues with misconduct
They relied on past competence concerns as if they were misconduct, which was incorrect.
These errors made the dismissal unfair, even though the comment itself was inappropriate.
Despite the unfair dismissal finding, the tribunal said that dismissing the employee for the comment alone could have been reasonable. This was because:
- The employer carried out a thorough investigation
- There was strong evidence about the impact of the comment
Because the tribunal agreed that misconduct did occur, it reduced the employee’s compensation by 65%. This follows the principle of contributory fault – the idea that the employee’s own actions helped cause their dismissal.
Key takeaway
Even where misconduct is serious, a dismissal can still be unfair if:
- old or irrelevant evidence is used
- evidence is misinterpreted
- a fair process is not followed
Employers must get both the decision and the process right.
If you need advice or guidance in respect of potential gross misconduct, please contact us.
How to handle a dismissal appeal fairly and effectively
Offering an appeal following a dismissal is only half the story. How you handle it can determine whether an otherwise fair dismissal stands – or falls.
The Acas Code of Practice makes clear that appeals should be conducted without unreasonable delay and handled impartially. In reality, the appeal stage is often the employer’s final opportunity to correct procedural flaws and demonstrate overall fairness.
The starting point is to understand the grounds of appeal. Is the employee challenging the decision itself, raising concerns about the process, or presenting new evidence? Clarifying this early will help determine whether the appeal should be a review of the original decision or a full rehearing.
The choice matters. A review focuses on whether the original decision was reasonable based on the available evidence. A rehearing, by contrast, involves reconsidering the case from scratch. Where there are allegations of bias or serious procedural defects, a rehearing is often the safer option.
Equally important is selecting the right appeal manager. The Acas Code recommends appointing someone not previously involved and, ideally, more senior. While some prior involvement will not automatically invalidate the process, independence and objectivity are critical.
Preparation is key. The appeal manager should have access to all relevant documentation, including the investigation report, disciplinary notes and outcome letter. They should understand their role and the scope of the appeal before the hearing begins.
During the hearing itself, fairness and professionalism are essential. The appeal manager should:
- Clearly explain the purpose and structure of the meeting
- Give the employee a full opportunity to present their case
- Properly consider any new evidence
- Ask neutral, clarifying questions
A common mistake is treating the appeal as a formality or “rubber-stamping” exercise. This approach is risky. In Milrine v DHL, a dismissal was found unfair because the employer failed to properly carry out the appeal process – even though the earlier stages were sound.
Ultimately, the appeal must be a genuine reconsideration. When handled well, it can rescue an otherwise flawed process. When handled poorly, it can undo even the strongest case.
For advice and guidance in respect of an appeal process, contact us.
Religion, belief and dress codes – striking the right legal balance
Dress codes may appear to be fairly routine, but they carry significant legal and reputational risk if handled incorrectly. Employers who impose inflexible or poorly thought-out requirements can quickly find themselves facing discrimination claims, employee relations issues and wider reputational damage.
The starting point for any analysis is the Equality Act 2010. This protects employees from discrimination because of religion or belief, amongst other protected characteristics. In the context of dress codes, the key legal risk is usually indirect discrimination—where a policy applies to everyone but has a disproportionate impact on a particular group.
The crucial question is whether the policy can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Case law provides helpful guidance on how tribunals approach this balancing exercise. In Eweida v United Kingdom, a British Airways employee was prevented from wearing a small visible cross in breach of its uniform policy. The European Court of Human Rights found in her favour, holding that the employer’s desire to project a particular corporate image was not sufficiently strong to justify restricting her right to manifest her religion. The cross was discreet and did not undermine professionalism.
By contrast, in Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, decided alongside Eweida, a nurse was prohibited from wearing a crucifix necklace for health and safety reasons. This time, the restriction was upheld. The risk of infection and the possibility of patients grabbing the necklace were considered legitimate concerns that outweighed the employee’s rights.
These cases illustrate a key principle: context is everything. Health and safety will often provide a strong justification; corporate image alone rarely will.
A similar approach can be seen in cases involving religious clothing. In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, a teaching assistant was required to remove her full face veil while working with pupils. Although this amounted to indirect discrimination, it was justified because the school needed effective communication in the classroom. Likewise, in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd, a requirement to wear a shorter jilbab was upheld due to health and safety concerns.
However, employers must still consider less discriminatory alternatives. Where adjustments are available, a blanket ban is unlikely to be proportionate.
It is also important to remember that protection extends beyond mainstream religions. Philosophical beliefs – if genuinely held and sufficiently serious – are also covered. This creates additional risk where dress codes regulate symbols or expressions of belief, particularly if policies are applied inconsistently.
The key takeaway is that flexibility and justification are critical. A lawful dress code should allow for exceptions, be grounded in genuine business needs, and demonstrate that alternatives have been considered. In this area, a rigid approach is rarely defensible – and often unnecessary.
If you have any questions about a dress code, contact us for more information.
And finally
Sometimes the factual background to a tribunal claim sounds like it has come straight out of high school. Billings v Nestle UK is one of those claims. The fire alarm had gone off at the factory where Mr Billings worked, requiring a full evacuation. An investigation into the cause of the fire alarm concluded that somebody had been vaping in the toilets. Nestle alleged that that somebody was Mr Billings. If this had been high school, Mr Billings would no doubt have received a detention, nothing more. However, this being employment (and in a factory environment), he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal held that Mr Billings had been unfairly dismissed:
- The disciplinary officer was more concerned about Mr Billings’s lack of apology than the vaping itself. He openly acknowledged that, if Mr Billings had admitted the conduct, he would not have been dismissed. The tribunal concluded that “failing to apologise or to accept responsibility is not misconduct”. The employer should not have relied upon it.
- Dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses available, given that this was a single isolated act in an otherwise unblemished career.
- The employer had no policy which specifically said that vaping at work would be regarded as gross misconduct.
There are lessons to be learnt by employers from this high school-worthy situation:
- If vaping at work is really that much of an issue, you should make that crystal clear in your policies
- Length of service and a clean disciplinary record can be important factors when considering whether summary dismissal is an appropriate sanction in response to alleged gross misconduct.
- Disciplinary officers should stick to the allegations in front of them and not get distracted by irrelevant points such as, in this case, the lack of an apology.
