The Haylo Effect Podcast · 2026-02-19 · 38 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
51 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
Joanna Sutton from Knockold returns to discuss the second phase of Employment Rights Act reforms affecting UK employers. In October 2026, fire-and-rehire becomes automatically unfair dismissal for restricted variations (hours, salary, holiday), though exceptions remain for genuine financial hardship - a response to controversial practices by retailers like Tesco and Post Office. Third-party harassment liability expands employer accountability to include customers, clients, and contractors, a significant shift returning protections repealed in 2013 and creating compliance challenges for hospitality and customer-facing industries. Employment tribunal time limits double from three to six months, extending access to justice for claimants while increasing employer exposure. The discussion emphasizes that these changes reinforce fairness principles and cultural shifts around workplace dignity, though they substantially increase employer compliance obligations and legal risk, particularly around customer-facing harassment incidents that employers cannot directly control.
Fire-and-rehire remains possible only when genuinely necessary to prevent serious financial difficulty or insolvency. It becomes automatically unfair dismissal for restricted variations like hours, salary, and holiday, reflecting government intent to effectively outlaw the practice except in extreme circumstances.
Employers must train staff on what constitutes unacceptable harassment, establish clear reporting processes to supervisors, include anti-harassment terms in customer contracts, and actively investigate and respond to complaints rather than tolerating or ignoring them.
The six-month deadline extends claimant access to justice and means employers face longer exposure to potential claims. However, employers who follow proper procedures face no increased practical risk, as the change primarily helps claimants like new mothers who previously ran out of time to bring cases.
No - third-party harassment covers harassment based on any protected characteristic including age, sex, race, disability, and other protected grounds, significantly expanding the scope of employer liability.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode delivers a functional walkthrough of five distinct UK Employment Rights Act changes with some concrete actionable implications (e.g., probation documentation as a legal defence, 12-week zero-hours review cycles), but is significantly diluted by pleasantries, mutual validation, and surface-level commentary. Insight rate is moderate, not dense.
the stats are that about six million employee more employees will gain the right to claim unfair dismissal
one in 10 women who are going through the menopause leave work because of the symptoms that they're experiencing
Almost entirely a legal briefing rather than fresh thinking; the content is descriptive rather than analytical. The one genuinely counterintuitive observation - that day-one unfair dismissal rights might actually simplify tribunal claims by reducing shoehorned discrimination claims - is interesting but underdeveloped and quickly dropped.
leads to you know increases all these delays whereas unfair dismissal claims they class as more straightforward and can be dealt with within a day so potentially it could mean that yeah the claims go back to being about what they're actually about
no one goes to work to be harassed
Joanna Sutton is a credible, practicing employment lawyer with specific legislative knowledge and demonstrable client and government-consultation experience, making her a legitimate practitioner voice. However, she is an advisor rather than an operator who has implemented these changes at scale inside a business.
I've been working with a menopause charity who are speaking with the government about um what they think needs to be you know included in that
So when I have employees coming to me and saying I've been sacked and I've worked for my employer for you know nearly two years, what can I do about it? And I say nothing
The episode is stronger than average on specificity: named companies (P&O Ferries, Tesco), concrete thresholds (£118k compensation cap, 250-employee trigger, 12-week look-back period), statistics (6 million additional employees, 13 - 14% gender pay gap, 1-in-10 menopause statistic), and clear dates (Oct 2026, Jan 2027). Falls short of exceptional because numbers are largely cited without primary sourcing or deeper breakdown.
the cap that the government increased every year, which at the moment is about 118,000
sitting at around 13-14% and so they want more proactive steps to be taken to deal with it
The host occasionally lands a genuine challenge - notably pressing on the logic of employer liability for third-party behaviour they cannot control - but the overall dynamic is heavily weighted toward affirmation and mutual praise, with setup questions that invite explanation rather than scrutiny. No real pushback or productive disagreement occurs.
From the bottom of my heart, you always give us so much time, energy, knowledge, and I think it's it's crucial
I can see that being being liable for the actions of someone that I have no control over. That feels like a lot.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Big changes are landing across UK employment law, and we break them down into clear actions leaders can take now. Joined by Joanna Sutton from Nockolds, We start with October 2026, where attempts to change core contractual terms via fire and rehire face strict limits, signalling a cultural shift toward genuine consultation and fair process. We then open up the hard bit: third‑party harassment liability returning for customers, clients, and contractors. That means training, strong reporting routes, and updated client terms if you want to stay compliant and protect your people. From there, we zoom in on the practical ripple effects of doubling tribunal time limits from three to six months. It’s a sensible move for access to justice, but it will reward organisations that resolve issues early and document decisions well. The centrepiece arrives in early 2027: unfair dismissal will become available after six months’ service, with the existing compensation cap flagged for removal. We explain how to use probation properly, setting expectations in week one, holding regular reviews, recording support provided, and making timely, fair calls, so managers don’t stumble into avoidable claims.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
1 - > SPEAKER_00: Right, welcome back. 2 - > We're doing part two where we look at the Employment Rights 3 - > Act, and I'm once again joined by the fabulous, the amazing 4 - > Joanna Sutton from Knockold. 5 - > How are you doing? 6 - > SPEAKER_01: Good, what an intro, thank you.
7 - > SPEAKER_00: From the bottom of my heart, you always give us so 8 - > much time, energy, knowledge, and I think it's it's crucial. 9 - > I think it's really important. 10 - > I know I've got a lot of clients who are nervous about this 11 - > stuff, and just being able to listen to someone who knows what 12 - > they're talking about, talks about it in plain English and 13 - > just makes it nice and clear. 14 - > It's gold dust.
15 - > So thank you. 16 - > SPEAKER_01: Welcome, thank you. 17 - > SPEAKER_00: Alrighty, look, let's get right into it. 18 - > So last time we went through um the different um parts of the 19 - > act that were coming in in April, um, and we deliberately 20 - > kind of stopped it so that we could think about within this 21 - > part, um, October onwards and also kind of 2027.
22 - > I can't believe it's 2026, to be honest. 23 - > I still can't get my head right now. 24 - > Where did last year go? 25 - > SPEAKER_01: It disappeared.
26 - > I don't know where it went. 27 - > SPEAKER_00: I looked at literally up and I'm like, well, 28 - > how am I in 2026? 29 - > Anywho, so last time we did um the changes that were coming in 30 - > April 2026. 31 - > This time around we'll do October 26, and then we'll look 32 - > at 2027 as well, particularly because there's some there's at 33 - > least one biggie coming in 2027.
34 - > So let's start off with yes, the one that we're all like, but we 35 - > shall get there shortly. 36 - > So let's start off with fire and rehire. 37 - > So October 2026, fire and rehire becomes automatically um unfair 38 - > dismissal, um, which I'm quite pleased about, to be honest. 39 - > Um, well does that mean that people won't be able to use it 40 - > at all?
41 - > Because that's quite specific, isn't it, saying it'll become 42 - > automatically unfair dismissal. 43 - > So is it going away completely? 44 - > SPEAKER_01: That was the original intention of the 45 - > government, I think, where they basically wanted to outlaw it. 46 - > So this practice of fire and rehire is basically used where 47 - > an employer wants to change an employee's terms of conditions, 48 - > so the terms of their contracts.
49 - > Um, normally you have to get the employee's agreement to that. 50 - > So you would consult with the employee, explain to them why 51 - > you want to change it, what the changes mean. 52 - > Um, and then if the employee still doesn't agree, then you 53 - > either have to decide to just carry on with the existing 54 - > contract, or if you want to force it through, you can, um, 55 - > or one option is you dismiss them, um, and then you offer 56 - > them new employment on the on the revised terms that you 57 - > wanted to try and um force through, or you give those terms 58 - > to somebody else and you get rid of the employee.
59 - > So you fire and rehire. 60 - > Um, and again, over the last few years that's become a bit of a 61 - > controversial practice. 62 - > Again, PO fairies are to blame, I think, for for this one 63 - > because that's what they wanted to do. 64 - > They made all their staff redundant, then wanted to rehire 65 - > agency workers who were cheaper.
66 - > Um, and so it's been used then. 67 - > It also, I think Tesco used it, um, where they were trying to 68 - > overturn a deal that had been negotiated previously with 69 - > unions, and then they decided they didn't like that anymore. 70 - > So they were trying to force it out and use this practice. 71 - > So, again, big employers forcing through changes because the 72 - > balance of power between you know big corporation and 73 - > individual employees is completely out of work.
74 - > So the government said, no, no, we don't like that. 75 - > We want to um to outlaw it basically, so that you their 76 - > their intention was that you couldn't use it at all, um, 77 - > unless it meant that the company would go under, essentially, if 78 - > you didn't enforce the the change. 79 - > And it was one of the things going through the ping-pong 80 - > stages in parliament where um the Conservative and Labour 81 - > government and the House of Commons and the House of Lords 82 - > just couldn't agree.
83 - > So the where we've got to now is that um you can't force through 84 - > these changes by using fire and rehire um if it is a a 85 - > restricted variation. 86 - > So there are certain things that they are specifying you cannot 87 - > change um by going through this process. 88 - > So it's obvious stuff like you can't change hours and salary 89 - > and holiday and things like that. 90 - > So the big things that are sort of fundamental terms, and that 91 - > that exception about um the company going in going under or 92 - > being in sort of serious financial difficulty if the 93 - > change doesn't um uh go through is still there.
94 - > So it's not something that you know that that that's used every 95 - > day, um, but it is something that politically has become 96 - > quite unpopular. 97 - > So again, it it's really just to sort of um to earmark that to 98 - > say we don't like this practice, please don't use it unless you 99 - > absolutely have to. 100 - > It's basically the the the stance, I think. 101 - > SPEAKER_00: I have to say it's but it's always been one of 102 - > those ones that's just never really sat right with me.
103 - > So obviously, when I'm advising you know clients or when I'm 104 - > working in businesses, I'll always say, like, these are your 105 - > options, and this is one of them that I really wouldn't recommend 106 - > that you do. 107 - > I've just I'm doing my job by telling you, but I really 108 - > wouldn't recommend they do. 109 - > So it just doesn't yeah, I am pleased to see something kind of 110 - > making that a little bit more stringent, which is really cool. 111 - > Yeah, yeah.
112 - > Okay. 113 - > Um, so we're sticking with October. 114 - > Um, we've not got too much happening in October. 115 - > April was quite a busy month from the last podcast that we 116 - > did.
117 - > Yeah, um this time we're looking at third-party harassment 118 - > liability. 119 - > So October 26th, it will see employers become liable for 120 - > third-party harassment. 121 - > So that's customers, clients, contractors. 122 - > Why is this such a big shift?
123 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I mean, this is a this is a big one, and it's 124 - > one that a lot of employers are are are concerned about. 125 - > So, I mean, it it's big in the sense, and it goes back to what 126 - > we were saying in the first part of the podcast about harassment 127 - > really being a big part of the government's agenda, um, to, you 128 - > know, to make sure that this is being dealt with and that there 129 - > is a cultural change within organisations, that you know, 130 - > these things are no longer sort of um, you know, people don't 131 - > look the other way in the way that maybe you did in, you know, 132 - > 30 years ago, that no one goes to work to be harassed.
133 - > Um, and this third party harassment was actually law. 134 - > Um, I think back in um 2013 it was it was um repealed. 135 - > Um basically what it means is that currently your staff cannot 136 - > harass one another. 137 - > So um employees uh are not allowed to uh to harass each 138 - > other, that results in a claim.
139 - > What this is doing is meaning that third parties also can't 140 - > harass your staff at work. 141 - > So, as you said, clients or customers, things like that, 142 - > which um is much more difficult for an employer to manage than 143 - > it is their own staff. 144 - > So you have visibility of your own staff, you can train them, 145 - > you can have clear policies on what they can and can't do. 146 - > You can't do that for your clients necessarily.
147 - > So, you know, what it would mean is perhaps putting something in 148 - > your terms and conditions to say, oh, and by the way, we 149 - > don't accept harassment of our staff, you must not harass any 150 - > of our staff, you know, makes sense, common sense, you know, 151 - > you would think that you don't need to spell that out. 152 - > But if you think about perhaps a hospitality setting or something 153 - > like that, like a restaurant, you know, and you will have your 154 - > staff dealing with members of the public, you know, being 155 - > waiters and waitresses, um, it's really difficult to police that 156 - > um in those circumstances.
157 - > And um, so it the liability for those organizations, if 158 - > employees can bring claims for customers in that setting, 159 - > harassing them where the employer has no idea it's 160 - > happening and no ability to control it, is really, yeah, 161 - > really difficult. 162 - > So um this is a a big change and one that employers in those 163 - > sorts of settings are very concerned about. 164 - > And it's not just sexual harassment, it's harassment for 165 - > any protected characteristic.
166 - > So age, sex, race, disability, you know, all of those things. 167 - > Um so yeah, it's it it creates a huge new um area of liability 168 - > for employers. 169 - > SPEAKER_00: I would like to think that everybody in the 170 - > world would agree with me, but you know, harassment in any way, 171 - > shape, or form is not okay. 172 - > So fabulous to see things that kind of um bolster that and as 173 - > much as we're seeing with this.
174 - > But I guess my concern is as an employer, how am I supposed to 175 - > stop someone that is not under my control, customers in 176 - > particular? 177 - > You know, we all know what it's like when you go to a 178 - > restaurant, not okay, but when you go to a restaurant and it's 179 - > horrible, as an employer, how am I controlling that? 180 - > And then also how am I liable for that? 181 - > I feel it almost feels as it needs to be legislation that 182 - > covers the way the customer's acting, but that not necessarily 183 - > the employer being liable for it.
184 - > I suppose, unless it's a case of the employer's tolerating it and 185 - > kind of letting it happen. 186 - > I can see that being being liable for the actions of 187 - > someone that I have no control over. 188 - > That feels like a lot. 189 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
190 - > And I think that's where it comes down to how the employer 191 - > um approaches these kind of complaints. 192 - > So it will be important to make sure that staff are trained on 193 - > what isn't is not acceptable, what to do if they are 194 - > experiencing harassment. 195 - > So in a restaurant setting, they're waiting for a table, 196 - > someone says something, there's a supervisor or a manager that 197 - > they go and report it to, and it's dealt with, like you say, 198 - > is not, you know, just accepted and turned a blind eye or get 199 - > someone else to go and deal with that table, you know, it's that 200 - > kind of thing.
201 - > So I think that training around it, having a policy, having a 202 - > clear reporting process is going to be really important for 203 - > employers to be compliant with this obligation. 204 - > But um, if you think about it in a different setting, I don't 205 - > know, if you have your largest client who is sexually harassing 206 - > a member of staff, you know, that potentially causes huge 207 - > financial loss to the organization for reprimanding 208 - > that client um and losing their business.
209 - > But you know, that is what is expected to happen now. 210 - > And yeah, you know, rightly so. 211 - > SPEAKER_00: It should, yeah, completely agree. 212 - > Yeah.
213 - > Okay. 214 - > Sticking with October, and then we've got tribunal time limits 215 - > doubling. 216 - > Hey. 217 - > unknown: Yeah.
218 - > SPEAKER_00: How do we feel about this one? 219 - > So, where are we now in terms of tribunal time limits and how's 220 - > the doubling significant and does it increase legal exposure 221 - > for employers? 222 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so again, this goes back to what we were 223 - > speaking about in our first part of the podcast about the current 224 - > strain on the employment tribunal system, unfortunately. 225 - > So, currently, the um deadline that you have to issue a claim 226 - > if you want to is three months from whenever the thing has 227 - > happened that you are complaining about.
228 - > So, three months from the date that you got dismissed, three 229 - > months from when you were discriminated against, that kind 230 - > of thing. 231 - > And it's a pretty short time limit, you know, that can go 232 - > pretty quickly. 233 - > Um, so what is being proposed now is as you say, that will 234 - > double. 235 - > So you will have six months to bring a claim, which you know, 236 - > in the grand scheme of the deadlines that you have to bring 237 - > other types of claims outside of employment law.
238 - > So for breach of contract, for example, in the civil courts, 239 - > you have six years. 240 - > Um so yeah, yeah. 241 - > So you know, six months in the grand in that sense, it seems 242 - > you know, still like quite a lot, a short period of time. 243 - > Um but I think the intention behind that is to reflect the 244 - > fact that three months is is really short.
245 - > And if you have somebody who perhaps has a claim as a result 246 - > of you know maternity or pregnancy discrimination and 247 - > they have just had a baby, that three-month period is just gone 248 - > in the blink of an eye. 249 - > And so by extending it to six months, again, it's meant to be 250 - > making sure that everybody has access to justice and um, you 251 - > know, proper time to put a case together or to seek legal advice 252 - > or um to take things further when they feel ready to do so.
253 - > Um, rather than, you know, a lot of people don't even know about 254 - > this deadline and they they think about things for a while 255 - > and then think, oh, I'd like to I think I'll see if I can do 256 - > something about that and they're out of time. 257 - > SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I and do you know what? 258 - > I feel like I know last time we were talking about how some of 259 - > the things in this act, it just feels like we're tidying up 260 - > things that just don't quite feel never quite felt right.
261 - > I think this is definitely one of them. 262 - > I think I mean I think part of the problem with tribunal time 263 - > limits at the moment, which you've kind of alluded to, is I 264 - > think people know about them. 265 - > So, like you say, people think about stuff and then they think, 266 - > oh okay, well, it's been a few months afterwards, I want to do 267 - > something, and then as you say, they're they're timed out. 268 - > Um, and also, you know, bringing something to a tribunal is a big 269 - > deal.
270 - > Like you kind of need the space and the time to digest that, 271 - > understand the process, figure out if it's the right thing for 272 - > you, and three months doesn't kind of sit right. 273 - > So, this to me feels like a common sense change. 274 - > I think it's gonna be frustrating for employers 275 - > because normally, you know, you've got that we're counting 276 - > down, aren't we? 277 - > And it it means that we're increasing that time.
278 - > But ultimately, I suppose the thing is if you're doing things 279 - > in the correct way in the first place, then you haven't really 280 - > got to worry about this stuff, have you? 281 - > SPEAKER_01: No, exactly. 282 - > And I think that actually that kind of classic um, you know, 283 - > you would sort of count the time to see after someone had left 284 - > you see if you were expecting that they might take it forward, 285 - > you'd kind of be like, okay, three months time, we don't need 286 - > to worry about that.
287 - > In reality, because of the pressures on the employment 288 - > tribunal, that's not happening, you know, that that time you can 289 - > get a claim months later um out of the blue. 290 - > So um, yeah, so that that doesn't happen necessarily 291 - > anymore, anyway. 292 - > But yeah, I mean, I think that it it makes sense. 293 - > And equally it might be that that means people have more time 294 - > to take legal advice, or actually they have more time 295 - > where their life moves on.
296 - > I mean, in my experience, people are very angry when things first 297 - > happen or they feel wronged, but then you go and get another job, 298 - > or you know, something else happens, and in a few months' 299 - > time you don't feel so strongly about it. 300 - > And so that it may have that beneficial effect as well, that 301 - > actually, you know, that they don't necessarily result in more 302 - > claims. 303 - > Although I think that the the impact assessment is that it 304 - > probably will result in an increase.
305 - > SPEAKER_00: Yeah, no, I I agree, but then you've also got that 306 - > compounding issue in terms of the resourcing within the 307 - > tribunal system anyway. 308 - > So it feels like we're kind of going around in circles a little 309 - > bit in terms of yes, a longer time to bring something, but it 310 - > doesn't, you're not gonna have it heard sooner because we 311 - > haven't got the resources, that's the problem. 312 - > SPEAKER_01: No, exactly. 313 - > SPEAKER_00: So one step forward, one step back, but uh I feel 314 - > like it's positive.
315 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I think so. 316 - > I think so. 317 - > I think that yeah, it's it's not a huge in the as I say, in the 318 - > grand scheme of things, it's not still not a huge time limit. 319 - > Um, it's not like it's years and years.
320 - > SPEAKER_00: Okay, alrighty. 321 - > So that kind of sees us out to the end of um um 2026, and it 322 - > brings us to the biggie, the showstopper in 2027. 323 - > So for those of you who haven't been kind of following what's 324 - > happening with this act, we're now talking about kind of how 325 - > how unfair dismissal is going to change. 326 - > And for me, this is the biggie, right?
327 - > This is the one that I think is going to impact a lot of 328 - > employers and a lot of employees, really. 329 - > So tell us a little bit about what I'm talking about. 330 - > What why is this the change with unfair dismissal such a big 331 - > deal? 332 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah, so currently you have to work for your 333 - > employer for at least two years before you can gain the right to 334 - > claim unfair dismissal.
335 - > So, up until that point, you can be dismissed at any point for 336 - > any reason, without following a process, and you can there's 337 - > nothing you can do about it unless you have other claims for 338 - > discrimination or whistleblowing and that kind of thing. 339 - > Um, and that's a really long time, two years, to work for 340 - > someone and have really no employment rights. 341 - > And so the Labour government, this was like top of the agenda. 342 - > This was one of their flagship things that they said through 343 - > the um, you know, their campaigning in the election for 344 - > um for them to be in power, that they said we're going to abolish 345 - > that and we're going to make it a day one right so that from 346 - > your very first day of employment, if you're dismissed, 347 - > then you will have the ability to claim unfair dismissal.
348 - > Um, obviously hugely unpopular with businesses. 349 - > And so there had then been, when the bill went was introduced 350 - > into parliament, a very complicated arrangement where 351 - > they said there would be um an initial period of employment 352 - > during which they would have to follow a lighter touch 353 - > procedure, and no one really knew what any of that meant. 354 - > It sounded a bit like a probation period, but no one was 355 - > really sure. 356 - > It was going to be a nine-month period, which just seemed 357 - > bizarre.
358 - > Um, anyway, so when this was going through parliament, that 359 - > was heavily opposed because it just made things really 360 - > complicated. 361 - > And so then someone cleverly in the House of Lords said, Why 362 - > don't we just have a six-month period where you have to have 363 - > worked for your employer for at least six months instead of two 364 - > years, and then everyone knows where they stand. 365 - > Um and so actually, I think great idea that makes it much 366 - > more straightforward.
367 - > And so, yeah, now you will have to have worked from January. 368 - > We think it's going to be January 2027. 369 - > You have to have worked for your employer for at least six months 370 - > um before you can claim unfair dismissal. 371 - > So that that's where we've landed.
372 - > Um, so that is expected to mean I think the stats are that about 373 - > six million employee more employees will gain the right to 374 - > claim unfair dismissal, which um employers don't like, but it 375 - > will be much more popular for employees. 376 - > So when I have employees coming to me and saying I've been 377 - > sacked and I've worked for my employer for you know nearly two 378 - > years, what can I do about it? 379 - > And I say nothing, it you know, that is doesn't give anyone 380 - > protection, job security, you know, anything at all.
381 - > So six months seems like a reasonable period to me. 382 - > It aligns with what a lot of probation periods are already. 383 - > Um really within six months you'll know whether someone is 384 - > right for you, you know, the role that you've employed them 385 - > for, the right person for your business. 386 - > Um, so I think it makes sense.
387 - > I don't know what you think. 388 - > SPEAKER_00: I think, you know, I know we've talked about it a lot 389 - > where this is kind of this act kind of tidies up some of the 390 - > kind of niggly things that we have in terms of employment law. 391 - > Yeah, it feels fair because I feel like the two-year period, 392 - > whilst it's definitely been something that I know kind of 393 - > clients and employers have relied on in the past, it it 394 - > never quite felt right because it felt like too long a period 395 - > of time.
396 - > Whereas six months, I think, probably does feel just about 397 - > that, and also, you know, and it's my my own personal opinion, 398 - > caveatted, but you know, usually people can kind of have a bit of 399 - > a mask on and pretend to be what you want them to be for about a 400 - > period of three months. 401 - > People can't usually last you know, four to six months of 402 - > pretending to be something that they're not. 403 - > So, provided you've got like a clear probationary period, I 404 - > think if it ties in with this, I think that makes sense.
405 - > It just means from my perspective that employers need 406 - > to get much better at dealing with problems because you I'm 407 - > sure you see it every day in your line of work. 408 - > But people will come to me and say, Oh, Trish, we've had this 409 - > person and they've been underperforming for the last 410 - > three years, and I'm like, Well, why haven't we done something 411 - > about that sooner? 412 - > Oh, it was just easier to leave it, we didn't want to upset the 413 - > apple cart.
414 - > That kind of thing just isn't going to be okay anymore, or at 415 - > least uh it will be okay, but what you're able to do with 416 - > about it from a legal perspective is gonna be very, 417 - > very different. 418 - > So I think a good thing. 419 - > I think it pushes people to deal with things sooner. 420 - > And you know, when I think about those kind of scenarios, if 421 - > you've had somebody that's in an organization underperforming for 422 - > years, they're probably not happy either.
423 - > Do you know what I'm saying? 424 - > Unless they're unaware, they're probably unhappy. 425 - > So I think things like this will probably help from a practical 426 - > perspective to deal with that kind of stuff, but I guess only 427 - > time will tell. 428 - > We'll have to see.
429 - > And you said January, so we're not going for the um 430 - > April-October with this particular thing. 431 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah, I think because they have now reached 432 - > this certainty about the six-month thing, and one of the 433 - > other things that was agreed to kind of get it through, was that 434 - > they would remove there's currently a cap on how much 435 - > compensation you can recover for an employment trial, um, sorry, 436 - > an unfair dismissal claim, um, which is either a year's salary 437 - > or a cap that the government increased every year, which at 438 - > the moment is about 118,000.
439 - > So your salary, annual salary if it's lower or that as a maximum. 440 - > Um, and they decided that they would abolish that. 441 - > And so, as part of that, they're now saying, yeah, it's going to 442 - > all come in um January 2027. 443 - > What it some commentators are saying is that they think that 444 - > actually this might make employment tribunal claims 445 - > slightly more straightforward.
446 - > Because what we see at the moment, because of that two-year 447 - > time limit, when employees realise that they haven't got 448 - > the required, you know, length of service to be able to bring 449 - > an unfair dismissal claim, and you say, Oh, but you could bring 450 - > a discrimination claim. 451 - > Have there been any issues in respect to that? 452 - > They try and kind of sometimes shoehorn a claim into, you know, 453 - > oh yeah, I think yeah, there was some discrimination because, you 454 - > know, this, that, and the other.
455 - > But discrimination claims and whistleblowing claims, the 456 - > employment tribunal automatically classes more 457 - > complicated and need at least a hearing of two or more days, 458 - > which then clogs up the system. 459 - > leads to you know increases all these delays whereas unfair 460 - > dismissal claims they class as more straightforward and can be 461 - > dealt with within a day so potentially it could mean that 462 - > yeah the claims go back to being about what they're actually 463 - > about I think it wasn't right that I was dismissed and I and 464 - > bringing a claim on that basis.
465 - > SPEAKER_00: Okay and that would be good wouldn't it provide a 466 - > little bit more kind of closure for people quickly hopefully 467 - > fingers crossed. 468 - > SPEAKER_01: But I think as you say managing having probation 469 - > periods and managing them is going to be so important to this 470 - > because so often people want to avoid having the difficult 471 - > conversations. 472 - > They never you know bring up performance issues or conduct 473 - > concerns that that that should be dealt with.
474 - > So I think you know having sort of a probation period in place 475 - > with regular review points and properly documenting if there 476 - > are concerns or issues or more training required that's then 477 - > you know put in an email so that then when you get to the point 478 - > if it's not going to be that that person's employee can is 479 - > not going to continue, it's not a shock to them. 480 - > You've already had you know various conversations you've 481 - > told them what the concerns are which will then hopefully reduce 482 - > the risk of them wanting to bring a claim because you have 483 - > laid the groundwork.
484 - > So that is going to be absolutely key to this and again 485 - > manager training and everything else so that they're doing all 486 - > these things and they understand the reasons why rather than it 487 - > just being you know an another thing they've got to do or sort 488 - > of admin probation is not going to be an admin thing anymore. 489 - > It's going to be really important to help defend claims 490 - > um for unfair dismissal. 491 - > SPEAKER_00: I think you make a really important part a pretty 492 - > important point about communication there because I 493 - > would say pretty much all of the work that I do when I'm fixing a 494 - > problem is a miscommunication.
495 - > It's somebody hasn't understood or something hasn't been 496 - > communicated which has then led somebody to feel a certain type 497 - > of way which in a lot of times is you know very valid that 498 - > communication is so important and particularly tied in with 499 - > this point in terms of people understanding where they're at 500 - > um because what I tend to find when things go wrong with 501 - > vacation period is just the employees got no clue. 502 - > The signals haven't been clear enough.
503 - > So I think that's really really important for people to remember 504 - > there about getting across clear messages within the right 505 - > timescales. 506 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah absolutely and yeah dealing with the right the 507 - > right things which is maybe that's conversation for another 508 - > day. 509 - > SPEAKER_00: Alrighty look we'll stick with 2027 because we're 510 - > almost there actually I feel like there was a lot less in 511 - > 2027. 512 - > So we've also got changes to zero hours contracts and know 513 - > we've talked about this quite a lot before.
514 - > So what's happening here? 515 - > So I know what they're trying to do is bring a bit more kind of 516 - > predictability a bit more security so how are things going 517 - > to change in 2027? 518 - > SPEAKER_01: Are we getting rid of zero hours contracts or is it 519 - > just that things are going to be kind of um strengthened a little 520 - > bit more in terms of how they work yeah so again this is 521 - > another I wouldn't say a U-turn but a definite a definite 522 - > softening on what the government had initially or the Labour 523 - > Party had initially said they wanted to do.
524 - > So initially they were saying they were going to ban 525 - > exploitative zero hours contracts and they politically 526 - > were very unpopular and that has been watered down somewhat um we 527 - > spoke about this on the previous podcast in terms of what was 528 - > being proposed and unfortunately is still really complicated. 529 - > I think this is the worst bit of the Employment Rights Act in 530 - > terms of what's proposed here which will mean that there need 531 - > to be lots of regulations in place to to actually bring it 532 - > into force so lots more kind of detail to to to come but 533 - > essentially the headlines of what's being proposed is that um 534 - > you can still have zero hour contracts so they they can still 535 - > be used but there um there will be sort of uh additional rights 536 - > relating to them.
537 - > So for example um you an employee will um have the right 538 - > to be offered a guaranteed hours contract where they are 539 - > regularly working a certain number of hours um you know per 540 - > week and that's going to be looking back over a previous 12 541 - > week period so if you were on a zero hour contract or you were 542 - > on a contract for a low number of hours but you're regularly 543 - > working say 20 hours a week an employer will have to say okay 544 - > now you're regular working 20 hours we're going to offer you a 545 - > contract for 20 hours and so they they have to do that and at 546 - > the moment it looks like you will have to do that every 12 547 - > weeks um so the admin burden there is awful um for employers 548 - > who kind of use these these types of arrangements so that 549 - > bit is going to be quite difficult to manage.
550 - > The other bit that that is being imposed that you have to give 551 - > reasonable notice of shifts and you have to um be compensated 552 - > for shifts that are cancelled or cut short um at the last you 553 - > know without without good notice. 554 - > Again going back to kind of what we've said about a lot of these 555 - > changes makes sense you know that that should be how um 556 - > people um are notified of you know that when they're required 557 - > to work and again that's meant to provide more security and 558 - > stability and mean that people can plan their lives and their 559 - > caring responsibilities and everything else.
560 - > So that bit isn't as bad but it's yeah it's the guaranteed 561 - > hours which it has been really un you know controversial 562 - > unpopular um what is proposed because some people are saying 563 - > look actually zero hour contracts work really well for 564 - > me I'm a student and I like the flexibility or I've got my own 565 - > business and I don't mind working like this or I'm 566 - > retired. 567 - > But equally there you know there are businesses who use them for 568 - > seasonal work and things like that.
569 - > And so there had been when the bill was going through 570 - > Parliament quite a lot of discussions around should there 571 - > be an exclusion for seasonal workers um like people picking 572 - > fruit crops or you know manning ice cream stands in the summer 573 - > or whatever. 574 - > But that hasn't been um carried through. 575 - > So um again we need more regulations on this there will 576 - > be further consultations on this um but yeah it it it's admin 577 - > heavy and so it will really rely on having good systems in place 578 - > to track the shifts that are being worked so that you can 579 - > check the guaranteed hour you know requirement but also where 580 - > they're being cut short or changed employers potentially 581 - > will need to change their normal practices to um to accommodate 582 - > whatever these new rules are about what that reasonable 583 - > notice will need to be to make any changes.
584 - > SPEAKER_00: I feel like zero hours contracts um really kind 585 - > of divide opinions so I'm I'm a big fan of TikTok so I do a lot 586 - > of TikTok videos whenever I do one on zero hours I get a real 587 - > kind of divide in terms of you were alluding to earlier some 588 - > people absolutely love them and they just really fit around 589 - > their work life they've obviously been treated fairly 590 - > and looked after well other people absolutely hate them and 591 - > that you know they're the worst thing in the world so it's I 592 - > always find there's never anybody in between no spectrum 593 - > on that end of the spectrum so definitely have more likes yeah 594 - > I I definitely agree with we need more reforms around it but 595 - > I think I don't know I felt like Bumble starting to talk about 596 - > exploitative zero hours contracts it almost kind of 597 - > demonised it when actually there's quite a lot of people 598 - > that do like them.
599 - > It's just as with anything there are organisations that don't use 600 - > them in a fair way I suppose it's kind of finding balance so 601 - > that people can still use them um but not alienate the people 602 - > that like them because it seems like there's quite a lot of 603 - > people that like them. 604 - > SPEAKER_01: I was surprised yeah exactly and I think you know 605 - > going back to that point about the whole intention behind this 606 - > is to sort of recognise modern working practices well that is 607 - > working practice you know what with that and the gig economy 608 - > and everything else you know people didn't work like this 20 609 - > years ago but you know we do now um and so I think it's intended 610 - > to sort of build a bit more regulation around it and whether 611 - > it changes so you know one of the suggestions had been instead 612 - > of employers having to offer the guaranteed hours it could just 613 - > be a right for an employee to request it you know that then 614 - > gives that flexibility of people who are like no I'm fine I like 615 - > this arrangement I don't want to change it you know so I wouldn't 616 - > be surprised if we see some changes to what's currently 617 - > proposed particularly as this is kind of one of the later um 618 - > changes that we're looking out for that yeah it might be that 619 - > we don't end up this coming in in in the form it looks like 620 - > right now my hunch is they've put the things later on where 621 - > they think they're gonna be a little bit there's gonna be a 622 - > little bit of change obviously um don't know that but it just 623 - > gives more scope doesn't it to be able to shape things and more 624 - > time yeah definitely the ones that are more complicated I 625 - > think they've definitely kicked the can down the road a bit and 626 - > then the last one that we've got for 2027 is around menopause so 627 - > this one is a mandatory menopause action plans um tell 628 - > us a little bit about that what when we say mandatory what do we 629 - > mean what what is a menopause action plan tell us a little bit 630 - > more yeah so I mean this one is um again I think meant to 631 - > reflect modern working practices um essentially what it is is 632 - > that large employers so employers with more than 250 633 - > employees will be required to put together an equality action 634 - > plan so it is then required to provide information about 635 - > prescribed things which at the moment all that has been 636 - > prescribed is um gender pay and menopause so essentially what 637 - > employers are doing within their organisations to um address 638 - > those two areas and the policy intent behind it I think is 639 - > definitely to do with the gender pay gap because employers have 640 - > large employers over 250 employees have been required to 641 - > report their gender pay gap for some time and sometimes what 642 - > they're doing is reporting it but actually then they don't 643 - > have an action plan in terms of what what's being done and so 644 - > the government have said actually they think the gender 645 - > pay gap is not closing as quickly as they would like it's 646 - > sitting at around 13-14% and so they want more proactive steps 647 - > to be taken to deal with it.
648 - > So um menopause then links quite closely to that because I think 649 - > the stats are that one in 10 women who are going through the 650 - > menopause leave work because of the symptoms that they're 651 - > experiencing. 652 - > So that is then uh resulting in the more senior employees who 653 - > would be being paid more leaving the workforce which is then 654 - > having an impact on the gender pay um gap. 655 - > But also you're losing some really great you know talent and 656 - > experience um within your organisations and people are 657 - > working later um so again just reflects the reality of I think 658 - > normal working um life and these things um you know being 659 - > something that employers are having to deal with and that 660 - > people are speaking about more within you know the organisation 661 - > and having to deal with so um I think that makes sense.
662 - > I think the fact that they've said prescribed matters relating 663 - > to equality is interesting and it leaves it open for other 664 - > things. 665 - > I know that certainly when this was going through parliament 666 - > there was a debate around whether menstruation should um 667 - > be included as well you know what are you doing to support 668 - > women who have conditions like endometriosis or PMDD and that 669 - > kind of thing um which they haven't included at the moment 670 - > but I think potentially the way it's worded it leaves it open 671 - > that that could be potentially broadened.
672 - > And we also then have um the proposal for disability and 673 - > ethnicity pay gap reporting to come into force as well. 674 - > It's not part of the Employment Rights Act but it's something 675 - > that's been kind of going on in the background. 676 - > So yeah you can see that all of these things are meant to be um 677 - > sort of uh enforcing positive change uh to do with equality 678 - > which you know the the intention behind it is uh absolutely great 679 - > and should be happening.
680 - > SPEAKER_00: Yeah we can't really argue with positive change 681 - > around equality no exactly and wouldn't lie um all right look I 682 - > think that's all of my questions so we've done October 26th to 683 - > the things that are coming in 27. 684 - > SPEAKER_01: Anything else that you think it's important for 685 - > listeners and watchers to know no I would just say keep a close 686 - > eye on all of this because it is yes we have the Employment 687 - > Rights Act that now you know is in its final form but there are 688 - > lots of consultations ongoing um that if businesses listening to 689 - > this don't agree with some of the stuff we've said this is 690 - > your chance to you know to respond to those consultations 691 - > and to to shape um how this is you know how this is actually 692 - > going to end up looking I know that there's lots of you know 693 - > the equality action plans for example I've been working with a 694 - > menopause charity who are speaking with the government 695 - > about um what they think needs to be you know included in that 696 - > so that there is lots of consultations and opportunities 697 - > to to get involved to to shape it um but certainly until it's 698 - > in legally in in force and each of these dates are a kind of hit 699 - > then um we don't know exactly what it will end up looking like 700 - > so um keep a close eye on it um if you're unsure Trish and I are 701 - > more than happy to um to advise further on on what the current 702 - > status is and what you should be doing.
703 - > SPEAKER_00: And if people want to get hold of you, how do they 704 - > get hold of you? 705 - > What's the best way? 706 - > SPEAKER_01: Yeah so um always give me a call drop me an email 707 - > send me a message on LinkedIn anything like that I'm always 708 - > more than happy to you know to have a no obligation chat just 709 - > to see how I can help. 710 - > So yeah feel free to reach out.
711 - > SPEAKER_00: Amazing look thank you so much for your time um 712 - > I've learned a lot today so thank you that's been really 713 - > really helpful because there were some bits that just didn't 714 - > quite make sense and you always make things make sense so thank 715 - > you thank you for your time and your brain really appreciate it. 716 - > And hopefully I'll see you again soon and we can do more. 717 - > I mean hopefully we're not going to get changes as big as this 718 - > again um but as others come we shall do more podcasts.
719 - > SPEAKER_01: Absolutely and I think as some of these come into 720 - > you know come into effect and actually employers start dealing 721 - > with them I think there's that you know there's more to learn 722 - > from from that as well. 723 - > So yeah always happy to join you on your podcast Trish it's 724 - > always really helpful for me too. 725 - > SPEAKER_00: Amazing thank you so much I'll let you go back to 726 - > lawyering um and hopefully we'll speak to you soon.
Why The Employment Rights Act Will Reshape Work For Years To ComeFive Generations, One WorkplaceThe Science of Productivity: Harnessing Flow States for Maximum ImpactThe Human Inside: Balancing AI and People in HRAuthentic HR: Vicky Campbell on DEI, Work-Life Balance, and Innovation