The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that comments about an employee’s accent can be considered racial harassment under the Equality Act 2010, even if they weren’t made with racist intentions.

The decision reminds us that if conduct towards someone with a protected characterstic has the effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliaring or offensive environment for them, the intent of the harasser is irrelevant.

Here’s what you need to know about the case, why it matters, and what steps you can take to create a more inclusive workplace.

The Case

Ms. Carozzi, a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin, worked at the University of Hertfordshire but left the job before completing her probation period. She claimed she faced race-related harassment due to comments about her accent. She also brought a claim for victimisation, alleging that the University’s HR representative, Ms. Withers, refused to provide meeting notes to prevent her from using them in a potential discrimination case.

The employment tribunal dismissed her claims, deciding that the comments were about her “intelligibility” and not motivated by race. They also ruled that Ms. Withers’ decision was not victimisation because she would have acted similarly with any employee planning legal action.

However, Ms. Carozzi wasn’t satisfied with this outcome and took her case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal—and she won.

Why Accent-Based Comments Can Be Racial Harassment

Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment occurs when someone engages in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (such as race) that violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Importantly, the conduct only needs to be “related to” a protected characteristic—not necessarily motivated by it.

In this case, the EAT explained that:

• Comments about someone’s accent could be linked to their national or ethnic identity, which means they can be race-related.
• The law doesn’t require proof of intent or malice. What matters is the effect on the person experiencing the comments.
• Harassment claims are broader than direct discrimination claims, which require intent. Even unintentional remarks can be considered harassment if they create an offensive environment.

The EAT found that the original tribunal had focused too much on the intent behind the comments rather than their impact on Ms. Carozzi. The ruling emphasised that even if the comments were about her “intelligibility,” they were still related to her ethnic identity and could have made her feel degraded or humiliated.

What About the Victimisation Claim?

The EAT also tackled the issue of victimisation, which happens when someone is treated unfairly for making a discrimination complaint or doing something related to the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal had dismissed Ms. Carozzi’s claim, reasoning that Ms. Withers would have withheld the meeting notes from anyone planning legal action, regardless of the type of claim.

But the EAT disagreed, explaining that:

• The real question was whether the decision was influenced by the fact that Ms. Carozzi might make a race discrimination claim, which is a protected act under the Equality Act.
• Comparing her situation to others making different types of legal claims (e.g., constructive dismissal) was irrelevant because victimisation claims don’t require a comparison.
• The tribunal failed to consider whether withholding the notes put Ms. Carozzi at a disadvantage, especially since she was trying to resolve her grievance internally before escalating to a tribunal case.

The EAT allowed the appeal, sending both the harassment and victimisation claims back to a new tribunal for reconsideration.

What This Means for Employers

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for employers to:

• Recognise that comments about accents can be race-related, even if they seem harmless or are not intended to be discriminatory.
• Focus on the effect of the comments on the individual, rather than the intent behind them.
• Handle discrimination complaints carefully, ensuring that actions such as withholding information don’t appear retaliatory.
• Provide training on diversity and inclusion, especially about cultural sensitivities and unconscious bias.

Practical Steps for a More Inclusive Workplace

• Review Your Policies: Ensure that anti-harassment and discrimination policies explicitly cover language and accent-based remarks.
• Train Your Teams: Offer regular training on cultural awareness, unconscious bias, and how to communicate respectfully.
• Create Safe Reporting Channels: Make it easy and safe for employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation.
• Handle Complaints Sensitively: Investigate all complaints thoroughly and impartially, considering the effect on the complainant.
• Promote a Culture of Respect: Foster an inclusive environment where diversity is celebrated, and all employees feel valued.

For assistance, please contact [email protected]

Acas has revised its guidance on preventing sexual harassment at work, reflecting new legal obligations for employers. As of 26 October 2024, under the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, employers are now legally required to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

What’s Changed?

The new law introduces a proactive duty for employers, meaning they can no longer wait until an incident occurs to act. Instead, they must actively assess risks and implement preventive measures to protect employees from sexual harassment.

What Employers Need to Do?

According to the updated Acas guidance, employers should:

• Assess the Risk of Sexual Harassment: Consider specific scenarios where harassment is more likely to occur, such as working alone with clients or at off-site events.
• Identify Preventive Steps: Determine actions that could reduce these risks, such as implementing clear reporting procedures, conducting training sessions, or establishing workplace conduct guidelines.
• Evaluate Reasonableness: Decide which steps are practical and appropriate based on the organisation’s size, resources, and the nature of its work environment.

High-Risk Factors and Vulnerable Groups

The guidance highlights higher-risk situations where sexual harassment is more likely, such as:

• Working alone with clients or customers
• Social events or after-hours work gatherings
• Online interactions, including social media and messaging platforms

It also acknowledges that certain groups, such as younger workers, may be more vulnerable to harassment and require additional protective measures.

Practical Steps for Employers

To comply with the new legal duty, employers should:

• Conduct regular risk assessments focused on potential harassment scenarios.
• Implement clear policies that define acceptable behaviour and outline reporting procedures.
• Provide training to all employees, including management, on recognizing and preventing sexual harassment.
• Review and align related policies, such as social media guidelines, to cover online harassment, even on personal devices.
• Foster a culture of respect and inclusivity by encouraging open communication and promptly addressing complaints.

Why Is This Important?

The updated guidance reflects a shift from reactive to proactive measures, emphasising that prevention is better than cure. By actively working to prevent sexual harassment, employers not only comply with the law but also promote a safer and more inclusive workplace. For further guidance, contact [email protected].

Big changes are coming to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and National Living Wage (NLW) in the UK. Following the recommendations from the Low Pay Commission (LPC), the government announced on 29 October 2024 that new wage rates will take effect from 1 April 2025.

These changes are designed to help workers keep up with the rising cost of living and move closer to a single adult wage rate.

Starting from 1 April 2025, the minimum wage rates will be:

• National Living Wage (21 and over): £12.21 per hour (6.7% increase)
• 18-20 Year Old Rate: £10.00 per hour (16.3% increase)
• 16-17 Year Old Rate: £7.55 per hour (18% increase)
• Apprentice Rate: £7.55 per hour (18% increase)
• Accommodation Offset: £10.66 per day (6.7% increase)

On 26 October 2024, new sections of the Equality Act 2010 came into force, bringing significant changes to how employers must handle sexual harassment in the workplace. Introduced by the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, these changes place a legal duty on employers to actively prevent sexual harassment, rather than just respond to complaints.

Here’s what’s changed and what employers need to do to stay compliant.

Proactive Duty to Prevent Sexual Harassment

Employers are now legally required to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, known as the “preventative duty” under Section 40A of the Equality Act 2010. This means employers must be proactive, not just reactive, in ensuring a safe and respectful workplace.

If an employer fails to meet this duty, employment tribunals can increase compensation awards by up to 25%. This applies not just to compensation for sexual harassment but also to all discrimination-related compensation under the Equality Act 2010.

Updated Guidance from the EHRC

To help employers navigate these new obligations, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released updated technical guidance and an eight-step guide for preventing sexual harassment at work. This guide is designed to help employers take positive action to create a safer workplace.

The eight steps include:

1. Developing an Effective Anti-Harassment Policy – Clearly outline unacceptable behaviour and reporting mechanisms.
2. Engaging with Staff – Foster open communication and encourage employees to speak up.
3. Assessing and Reducing Workplace Risk – Conduct risk assessments to identify and address potential harassment hotspots.
4. Reporting Mechanisms – Ensure employees know how to report concerns safely and confidentially.
5. Training – Provide regular, effective training to staff and management.
6. Handling Harassment Complaints – Investigate complaints promptly and thoroughly.
7. Dealing with Third-Party Harassment – Take steps to protect workers from harassment by clients, customers, or contractors.
8. Monitoring and Evaluating Actions – Regularly review and update policies and practices to ensure effectiveness.

Key Considerations for Employers

1. Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment

Employers must now prove they took reasonable steps to prevent harassment. This includes risk assessments, staff training, and effective reporting mechanisms. The EHRC guidance highlights that steps should be tailored to the specific risks in each workplace.

• Third-Party Harassment

The new duty extends to third-party harassment, meaning employers are responsible for protecting employees from harassment by clients, customers, and contractors. Although workers can’t bring a standalone claim for third-party harassment, failure to take preventative steps could lead to a breach of the preventative duty.

• Zero-Tolerance Approach and Leadership Role

While not legally required, the EHRC encourages employers to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Senior leaders and management are urged to model respectful behaviour and foster an inclusive workplace culture.

• Anti-Harassment Policies and Record-Keeping

Employers should update their anti-harassment policies to reflect the new legal requirements and keep detailed records of all complaints—both formal and informal—to evaluate the effectiveness of their policies.

Why This Matters

These changes mark a significant shift from merely responding to harassment complaints to actively preventing them. Employers who fail to comply risk facing increased compensation awards, legal challenges, and reputational damage.

By taking proactive steps to prevent harassment, businesses can not only stay compliant but also create a safer, more inclusive workplace for everyone.

Next Steps for Employers

1. Review and Update Anti-Harassment Policies
2. Conduct Risk Assessments
3. Implement Comprehensive Training
4. Monitor and Evaluate

For further advice, please contact [email protected].  

On 1 October 2024, new rules came into play, changing the way tips are distributed in workplaces across the UK. The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, along with the related statutory Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips, is designed to ensure that tips, gratuities, and service charges are given to workers in full and shared out fairly.

To help navigate these changes, the government has also released non-statutory guidance which is a useful resource for employers.

If you run a business where tipping is common—like in hospitality, beauty, or delivery services—here’s what you need to know

What’s Changing?

The underlying principles of the new law are:

• That workers receive all tips in full: employers can no longer withhold a portion of tips, gratuities, or service charges.
• Fair and transparent distribution: Tips must be shared out fairly among staff who help deliver the service, and the process for doing so should be clear to everyone involved.

In meeting these objectives, employers must also ensure the following:

1. Fair Treatment for Agency Workers

Agency workers must be treated the same as directly employed staff. They should not be disadvantaged because of their status.

Example: If your tipping policy gives probationary staff a smaller percentage of tips than more experienced colleagues—and this rule is applied consistently to agency workers—this would likely be acceptable.

2. No Pooling Across Multiple Locations

Tips must be distributed at the location where they were received. Pooling tips from different branches or sites is not allowed.

Example: In a holiday camp that operates as a single site, it would be acceptable to pool tips collected across all food and drink service points and distribute them among staff. However, doing this across multiple holiday camps would not be allowed.

3. Include All Relevant Workers

All employees who directly contribute to customer service should be considered when distributing tips. This includes more than just waitstaff—it could also include roles like baristas, hosts, or even door porters, depending on the setting.

Example: In a fine dining restaurant, including the door porter would be reasonable, but including a marketing manager would not.

Practical Tools and Templates

To make compliance easier, the guidance provides templates for:

• A Tipping Policy – This clearly outlines how tips are collected, distributed, and recorded.
• Request Form for Tipping Records – For staff who want to review how tips were allocated.
• Tipping Record Template – To help employers keep accurate records, as required by the law.

These templates help ensure transparency and provide a clear reference if disputes arise.

Handling Disputes

The guidance encourages employers to try to resolve disputes internally. If this isn’t possible, advice from Acas can be sought.

Failing to comply with the new requirements can lead to legal action through employment tribunals.

Why This Matters for Your Business

With tipping being an important part of income for many workers, these new rules aim to protect workers’ rights and create a fairer workplace. Transparent tipping policies can also enhance employee satisfaction and trust, which is great for team morale and customer service.

If you haven’t already, now is the time to review your tipping practices and make any necessary changes to comply with the new law. For advice, please contact [email protected].

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has introduced a Privacy Notice Generator to assist small organisations and businesses in complying with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). The tool is designed to help organisations meet their transparency obligations under GDPR Articles 13 and 14, which require data controllers to inform individuals about how their personal data is collected, processed, and used. The tool can be accessed here: Create your own privacy notice | ICO

What the Privacy Notice Generator Does

The Privacy Notice Generator simplifies the creation of privacy notices tailored to the needs of an organisation’s employees, website visitors, and suppliers. These notices are essential for explaining an organisation’s data processing activities and ensuring compliance with the UK GDPR’s transparency and accountability requirements.

By providing a structured and accessible way to produce these notices, the tool reduces the burden on small organisations, including those with limited technical or legal resources. This is particularly valuable for entities that may struggle with the cost and complexity of drafting legally compliant documents independently.

Who Can Benefit?

The tool is specifically designed to support:

• Sole Traders and Start-Ups: Providing a straightforward way to achieve compliance for businesses just starting out.
• Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Offering a cost-effective solution for creating GDPR-compliant privacy notices.
• Charities: Helping resource-limited organisations fulfil their legal obligations.

By catering to smaller organisations, the ICO aims to make GDPR compliance more accessible and less daunting.

Aligning with ICO25 Strategic Goals

The Privacy Notice Generator reflects the ICO’s broader strategic objectives outlined in its ICO25 plan. These include promoting transparency and accountability among organisations and empowering businesses to handle personal data responsibly.

Transparency is a cornerstone of the UK GDPR, and tools like the Privacy Notice Generator are designed to ensure individuals understand how their data is handled. This, in turn, builds trust between organisations and their employees, customers, and partners.

The tool also encourages responsible data practices by providing clear guidance on how privacy notices should be structured and what information they should include.

What happens when a well-meaning holiday savings scheme clashes with the uncompromising rules of the National Minimum Wage (NMW)? In a case that underscores the strict social purpose of the NMW, Lees of Scotland Ltd learned the hard way that good intentions don’t always shield employers from legal repercussions. Here’s the full story of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Lees of Scotland Ltd [2024] EAT 120 and what it means for businesses.

Background

Lees operated a voluntary holiday scheme for employees, which allowed employees to voluntarily contribute a portion of their wages into a “holiday fund,” from which they could make lump-sum withdrawals. These funds were kept in Lees’ business account, providing a cash flow benefit, and accruing interest for the company. While the scheme was seemingly benign, the legal problem arose when HMRC determined that these deductions breached NMW regulations.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT, led by Judge Barry Clarke, overturned the initial tribunal ruling, reinstating HMRC’s notice of underpayment. The reasoning included:

1. A Purposive Approach to NMW Legislation:
   The EAT emphasised that NMW laws aim to secure a guaranteed minimum cash income for the lowest-paid workers, prioritising their financial security over employer intentions.
2. “Use and Benefit” of the Deductions:
   According to the EAT, the funds in Lees’ business account were at the company’s disposal, meaning the deductions were for the employer’s “use and benefit” under regulation 12(1) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.
3. Risk of Employee Loss:
   Had Lees become insolvent, employees could have lost their holiday savings entirely.
4. Repayment Misstep:
   The EAT rejected the notion that repaying the deducted amounts on request negated wage arrears. The tribunal’s view that these were “temporarily deferred wages” conflicted with the statutory requirement for arrears to be paid at the current NMW rate.

Key Takeaway

Interestingly, HMRC acknowledged that had Lees kept the holiday fund in a separate account managed by a third party, there would have been no breach. This small but critical detail highlights the importance of structuring employee savings schemes correctly to avoid unintended NMW violations.

Judge Clarke’s ruling reinforced the social purpose of NMW laws, stating that a “strong line” must be drawn, even when it leads to seemingly unfair outcomes for well-intentioned employers. For businesses, this serves as a stark reminder that compliance with NMW rules must take precedence over operational conveniences or even employee preferences.

Lessons for Employers

1. Check Wage Deductions: Any deductions, even voluntary ones, must not reduce an employee’s pay below the NMW.
2. Use Separate Accounts: Keeping employee-contributed funds in a segregated account can prevent compliance issues.

For further advice, please contact [email protected].

The recent tribunal case of Orwin v East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ET/6000146/2022) examined the dismissal of an employee who refused to remove a provocative email signature expressing his gender critical beliefs. The case sheds light on the complex balance between personal beliefs, workplace policies, and organisational values.

Background: Gender Critical Beliefs

The claimant held gender critical beliefs, asserting that sex is biologically binary. These beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, as they satisfy the Grainger criteria for philosophical beliefs. However, the case hinged on whether the claimant’s dismissal stemmed from these protected views or his actions in expressing them.

The Council’s Pronoun Policy

East Riding of Yorkshire Council had introduced a policy encouraging staff to include their preferred pronouns in email signatures. The policy was aimed at fostering inclusivity and did not mandate participation, allowing employees to opt out or select any pronouns.

The claimant opposed the policy, viewing it as an endorsement of self-identification, a concept he rejected. To express his disagreement, he added “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” to his email signature—a statement he later refused to remove despite repeated instructions from management.

Dismissal and Legal Challenge

The claimant’s refusal to comply led to his dismissal, prompting allegations of direct discrimination, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. He argued that the dismissal violated his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect freedom of thought and expression.

Tribunal Ruling: Actions, Not Beliefs

The tribunal ruled that the dismissal was not due to the claimant’s gender critical beliefs but rather the way he chose to express them. Drawing on principles from Higgs v Farmor’s School (2023), the tribunal determined that the email signature was not a legitimate manifestation of his beliefs but a deliberately provocative act designed to mock the Council’s inclusivity efforts.

The tribunal also found no direct link between the claimant’s beliefs and his dismissal. The Council’s actions were a response to the inappropriate nature of his email signature, not an attack on his protected beliefs.

Proportionality in Disciplinary Action

The tribunal deemed the Council’s response proportionate. As a public-facing employee, the claimant’s actions risked reputational harm and contradicted the Council’s efforts to promote inclusivity, a key element of its public sector equality duty. While the tribunal criticised the Council’s email policy as poorly implemented, it upheld the dismissal as justified in the circumstances.

Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees

1. Protected Beliefs and Behaviour: While philosophical beliefs like gender critical views are protected, their expression must not undermine workplace standards or policies. Provocative or disruptive actions can lead to justified disciplinary measures.
2. Public Roles and Organisational Values: Employees in public-facing positions must consider the reputational impact of their actions. Employers are entitled to enforce policies that align with their values and responsibilities.
3. Balancing Inclusivity and Expression: Organisations must strike a balance between fostering inclusivity and respecting employees’ rights to free expression. However, this right does not extend to actions that disrupt or contradict workplace goals.

For assistance on managing beliefs in your workplace, please contact [email protected] for advice.

The Home Office has released an updated version of its Employer’s Guide to Right to Work Checks. Key changes include the removal of the requirement for employers to carry out repeat checks on individuals with pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS). Employers now need to perform a right-to-work check for those holding pre-settled or settled status only before their employment begins.

The revised guidance also provides additional information about the transition from biometric residence permits to eVisas and outlines when follow-up right-to-work checks are necessary.

However, the updated guide does not address a recent change in the definition of “supplementary employment” as announced in the Home Office’s Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules: HC 590 (14 March 2024) and detailed in the Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors: Part 2 Sponsor a Worker (updated 9 April 2024). This change expanded the definition of supplementary employment to include all roles eligible under the route, rather than restricting it to shortage occupations or roles within the same Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code as the main sponsored position.

Employers should remain aware of these developments and consult the broader Home Office guidance to ensure compliance with all updated immigration and employment regulations.

A study conducted by Heriot-Watt University has uncovered the ongoing challenges faced by menstruating individuals in professional settings. By reviewing evidence and conducting 55 detailed interviews, the research highlights how menstruation remains a cultural taboo that is often ignored or insufficiently addressed in workplaces.

The Hidden Struggles of Menstruating Employees

The study exposes a range of difficulties faced by women, trans, and non-binary individuals who menstruate. These include:

• Inadequate Facilities: Many workplaces lack proper access to toilets and washing facilities, an issue particularly pronounced in remote or non-office environments.
• Physical and Mental Health Impacts: Menstruation-related pain, mental health symptoms, and societal stigma contribute to additional stress.
• Stigma and Concealment: The pressure to hide menstrual blood is widespread, especially in roles requiring white uniforms, such as laboratory work, where fears of visible “leak-throughs” are a constant concern.

These barriers not only lead to feelings of isolation but also impact concentration, productivity, mental health, and even career choices.

Unique Challenges for Marginalised Groups

The research also sheds light on the compounded difficulties faced by neurodivergent individuals and those with long-term health conditions or disabilities. Specific challenges include:

• Medication Conflicts: Hormone replacement therapies can interfere with other medications, exacerbating health issues.
• Delayed Support: A lack of understanding and support from healthcare providers often results in delayed diagnoses and inadequate workplace adjustments.

The Call for Change

To address these widespread issues, the study calls on workplaces to take meaningful steps towards better supporting menstruating employees. Key recommendations include:

1. Educating Managers: Providing training for line managers to handle menstrual health concerns with empathy and understanding.
2. Inclusive Policies: Introducing menstrual health education programmes and policies designed to remove barriers.
3. Practical Solutions: Ensuring hygiene products are available in all restroom facilities.

Building More Inclusive Workplaces

This research is a powerful reminder that organisations must confront outdated taboos and create environments that respect and accommodate the diverse needs of their workforce. Addressing menstrual health is not merely an act of inclusion; it is essential for promoting healthier, more equitable, and more productive workplaces for everyone.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes annual data on differences in pay between women and men by age, region, full-time and part-time work, and occupation, as derived from its Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. The ONS analysis of the gender pay gap is calculated as the difference between average hourly earnings (excluding overtime) of men and women as a proportion of men’s average hourly earnings (excluding overtime) across all jobs in the UK. It does not compare the pay of men and women performing the same job and is distinct from mandatory gender pay gap reporting.

Key insights from the ONS analysis include:

• The gender pay gap has been declining slowly. Over the last ten years, the pay gap for full-time employees has fallen by approximately a quarter. In April 2024, the pay gap for full-time employees was down to 7%, from 7.5% in 2023.
• The gender pay gap is larger among employees aged 40 and older compared to those under 40. While most age groups saw a decrease in the gap between 2023 and 2024, it increased for employees aged 50 to 59, rising from 11.1% to 12.1%.
• Higher earners experience a larger gender pay gap. The pay gap is 15.5% for full-time employees in the 90th percentile of earners, but it is 7.1% for median earners and 2.7% for employees in the 10th percentile of earners.
• The gender pay gap for full-time employees is higher in all English regions than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mariella Frostrup, a Women’s health campaigner, has been appointed as the Government Menopause Employment Ambassador. In this new voluntary position, she will work with employers across the UK to enhance workplace support for women experiencing the menopause. Her key objective is to help women remain in the workforce and advance their careers despite the physical and emotional challenges associated with menopause. Research indicates that nearly 70% of employed women aged 40-60 report that menopausal symptoms have a negative effect on their work, with over 50% unable to go into work at some point due to these symptoms.

Frostrup’s appointment coincides with initiatives in the Employment Rights Bill, which requires large employers to develop Menopause Action Plans outlining their strategies for supporting employees through the menopause. These proposals highlight menopause as a significant workplace issue, aiming to ensure comprehensive and proactive support for affected employees.

The Department for Business and Trade has published ten factsheets discussing measures included in the Employment Rights Bill 2024-25 (ERB). In addition to a factsheet providing an overview of the ERB, there are factsheets in relation to the following:

• The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body.
• Bereavement, paternity and unpaid parental leave.
• The Fair Work Agency.
• Fire and rehire.
• The School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
• Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).
• Trade unions.
• Unfair dismissal.
• Zero hours contracts.

Each factsheet states the government’s expectation that most reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026.

Each of the factsheets have the same format, with sections setting out the current policy or legal framework, the policy intent, how the reforms will work, and key statistics. They are a useful tool for employers trying to wrap their heads around the new Bill.

If you have any questions about the new Bill and other proposed legislative changes and when they are likely to affect you, contact us at [email protected].

In the case of British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd and another v Finn [2023] EAT 165, Mr Finn worked as an electrician. In July 2019, a colleague, Mr King, called Mr Finn a “bald c*nt” and threatened him with physical violence. His employer gave Mr King a warning regarding his conduct. On 26 March 2021, Mr King threatened Mr Finn again, and as a result Mr Finn told his employer’s s managing director and company secretary that he had had enough of Mr King’s behaviour and that, if they did not fire him, “that would be it”. He then left the workplace.

Mr Finn was subsequently summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in relation to another matter. He brought claims in the employment tribunal, including for harassment related to sex.

Section 26(1), Equality Act 2010 states that sex harassment occurs where A engages in unwanted conduct related to sex. The conduct must also have the purpose or effect of either violating B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

In applying his test, the employment tribunal held that Mr King’s conduct towards Mr Finn in July 2019 amounted to harassment related to sex. It was ‘unwanted’, since it was unwelcome and uninvited, and Mr King admitted that his intention was to threaten Mr Finn and insult him.

The comments were also clearly made with the purpose of violating Mr Finn’s dignity and ‘creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’ for him.

The most pertinent element of the judgement was that the tribunal considered that there was a connection between the word “bald” and the protected characteristic of sex. The fact that something could potentially apply to both sexes did not mean that it could not be inherently related to sex. Although baldness affected both men and women, it was more prevalent in men.

Interestingly, the tribunal held that the comment was not harassment related to age, which had also been claimed, since baldness affects men of all ages and was therefore not a characteristic of age.

The employer appealed to the EAT. It argued that in order to be related to sex, baldness would have to apply to one sex to the exclusion of the other. However, the EAT dismissed the appeal. It recognised the fact that the characteristic by reference to which Mr King had chosen to abuse Mr Finn was more prevalent in those sharing Mr Finn’s sex and more likely to be directed towards them. Therefore, it was inherently related to sex.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published new guidance on supporting disabled workers with hybrid working. The guidance is intended to help managers and leaders at small and medium-sized employers understand their legal responsibilities and the steps they can take to best support disabled workers.

The guide explains the law related to making reasonable adjustments for disabled workers. It focuses on how to identify when a worker or job applicant may need an adjustment, as well as how to identify barriers to hybrid working and determine the most appropriate adjustments. It also discusses implementation and review of any arrangements agreed, and gives general advice on how to foster a more inclusive working environment which is accessible for disabled workers.

The EHRC gives practical tips such as the usage of workplace assessments to help identify technology that can help disabled employees who work flexibly, and how providing specialised desks can minimise discomfort for staff with musculoskeletal conditions. It also includes case studies highlighting examples of how an employer can implement reasonable adjustments to overcome barriers to hybrid working for disabled staff.

The EHRC has named six organisations for failing to report their 2023-24 gender pay gap data by the deadline. The EHRC has highlighted that failing to provide this data prevents organisations from evaluating their pay disparities and addressing potential discrimination.

In England, public sector employers are required to publish their gender pay gap data by 30 March. Whereas, private and voluntary sector employers across Britain and some public sector bodies in England are required to publish their gender pay gap data by 4 April. Missing these deadlines can lead to a warning notice from the EHRC and formal enforcement action.

Between April and May 2024, the EHRC issued warning and reminder notices to over 600 organisations that had missed the reporting deadline. As a result of the reminders, nearly all of the 600 organisations have provided reports. However, six did not, including:

• Alpenbest Limited, based in Essex;
• Drug Development Solutions Limited, based in Cambridgeshire;
• Apex Prime Care, based in Essex;
• Norchem Healthcare Limited, based in Manchester;
• Ultra Electronics Limited, based in London; and
• Care Quality Services, based in Essex.

If your organisation has 250 or more employees, your gender pay gap data must be reported  each year and this year’s deadline is fast approaching. If you require advice on this matter, please contact our Employment Team.

The EHRC has submitted a report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, offering an updated analysis racial discrimination in Great Britain, including workplace rights.

The report revealed that Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Black groups in Great Britain experience the highest unemployment rates, with Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups also facing the largest pay disparities compared to White British workers. Employment gaps were particularly significant among Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. In contrast, Chinese, Indian, and White Irish workers earned more on average than White British workers.

Additionally, the report found that ethnic minority workers were disproportionately employed in insecure roles such as agency work, casual jobs, seasonal work, and zero-hours contracts.

The EHRC has put forward recommendations to the UK and Welsh Governments to tackle these disparities, including:

• Improving the evidence base on employment gaps.
• Requiring public sector employers in England and private sector employers across England, Scotland, and Wales with over 250 employees to monitor and report on recruitment, retention, and progression by ethnicity, alongside mandatory action plans to address gaps and inequalities.
• For the Welsh Government to ensure that it advances its commitment to tackling the ethnicity pay gap, as outlined in its ‘Programme for Government’.

These recommendations can now be considered alongside the labour government’s plans for reforms to race discrimination laws, including the right to equal pay for ethnic minorities and mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for large employers (250 or more employees).