Monthly Bulletin – April

New statutory payment rates 

In line with the start of the new tax year, several mandatory payment thresholds and statutory rates have been adjusted.  

While these figures represent the legal minimum an employer must pay, businesses may choose, or be contractually obligated, to provide enhanced packages that exceed these rates. 

Updated statutory rates (effective 6th April 2026) 

Unfair dismissal & earnings thresholds 

For dismissals occurring on or after 6th April, the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal is set at £123,543. 

Note: Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, this cap is scheduled for total removal in January 2027. Until then, this limit remains the legal maximum. 

To qualify for statutory family leave payments, an employee’s average gross weekly earnings must now be at least £129 (increased from the previous £125 threshold).

National Minimum Wage (NMW) adjustments 

Failing to meet National Minimum Wage (NMW) obligations carries heavy financial and reputational penalties. The government recently highlighted this by naming and shaming several major brands, including Bupa, Costa, and Hovis, for payment failures. Beyond the public relations fallout, employers face hefty fines reaching 200% of the total arrears owed. 

To avoid these risks, businesses must ensure their payroll systems are updated to reflect the new rates that took effect on 1st April 2026. 

2026 National Minimum Wage rates 

*The apprentice rate applies to those under 19, or those aged 19 and over who are in the first year of their apprenticeship. 

Key takeaways 

Underpayment often happens unintentionally. Employers should be particularly vigilant regarding: 

• Ensuring the new 1st April rates are applied immediately. 

• Automatically adjusting pay when a worker moves into a higher age bracket. 
• Remembering that many employment contracts or voluntary schemes may require higher pay scales. 

Navigating dress codes: balancing policy with religion and belief 

While dress code policies are often seen as a standard administrative task, they represent a significant area of legal sensitivity. An overly rigid policy can lead to costly discrimination claims and damage employee morale. 

The Equality Act 2010 

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees are protected against discrimination based on religion or belief. In the workplace, the most common failing is indirect discrimination. This occurs when a universal rule, such as ‘no headwear’, disproportionately affects a specific religious group. 

To defend such a policy, an employer must prove it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In simpler terms, this means that the employer can demonstrate a genuine business reason for the rule and is making sure it is being applied fairly.  

Eweida vs UK 

The courts consistently emphasise that the context of a restriction matters more than the rule itself. 

In Eweida v UK, the court ruled in favour of a British Airways employee who wished to wear a discreet cross. The company’s desire for a uniform corporate look did not outweigh the individual’s right to express her faith, as the jewellery did not impact her professionalism. 

Conversely, in Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, a nurse was barred from wearing a crucifix for clinical safety. The court supported the employer, citing valid concerns regarding infection control and patient safety. 

Communicating a legitimate aim 

The same logic applies to religious garments. In Azmi v Kirklees MBC, a school successfully argued that a teaching assistant needed to remove a full face veil to ensure effective communication with students. Similarly, in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd, a nursery’s request for a shorter jilbab was upheld because the original garment posed a tripping hazard. 

This demonstrates a key principle that tribunals will look for evidence that the employer considered less restrictive alternatives before enforcing a rule. 

Beyond mainstream religion 

HR teams must remember that protection extends to philosophical beliefs, provided they are deeply held and meet specific legal criteria. Inconsistent enforcement, allowing one type of symbol while banning another, is a fast track to a discrimination claim. 

Key takeaways 

To ensure your policy remains on the right side of the law, consider the following: 

1. Justification: Can you link every restriction to a specific need, such as health, safety, or operational necessity? 
2. Flexibility: Does your policy allow for individual exceptions or reasonable adjustments for religious reasons? 
3. Consistency: Are the rules applied evenly across the workforce to avoid claims of bias? 
4. Dialogue: If a conflict arises, engage in an open discussion with the employee to find a compromise before taking disciplinary action. 

A one-size-fits-all approach to appearance is a legal liability. Flexibility and clear justification are your best defences. 

Gross misconduct: lessons from Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue 

A recent Employment Tribunal ruling serves as a reminder that even when an employee’s behaviour is clearly inappropriate, a flawed disciplinary process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. 

The case 

In Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, a long-serving firefighter was summarily dismissed following a misogynistic remark. During a rescue operation, he commented that the female casualty “looked haggard for her age”. While the employer deemed this gross misconduct, the Employment Tribunal ultimately ruled that the dismissal was unfair. 

The Burchell Test 

To successfully defend a misconduct dismissal, an employer must satisfy the three-stage Burchell Test. They must demonstrate that they: 

1. Genuinely believed the misconduct occurred 
2. Had reasonable grounds for that belief 
3. Conducted a thorough and fair investigation 

Furthermore, the decision to dismiss must fall within the ‘band of reasonable responses’, meaning it is a choice a reasonable employer could realistically make under the circumstances. 

Where the employer faltered 

Despite having a legitimate reason to be concerned, the employer’s process was undermined by three critical errors: 

• The business used a ‘Note for File’ from five years prior. Under their own internal policy, this should have been disregarded after six months. 

• Personal Development Plans (PDPs) were incorrectly used as evidence of a disciplinary track record. These plans are for growth, not punishment, and one even highlighted the claimant as a high performer. 

• The employer tried to use past concerns regarding the claimant’s professional competence to bolster a case for conduct-based dismissal. These are two distinct legal areas and should not be blurred. 

Although the dismissal was procedurally unfair, the employer was not liable for the full cost of the claim. The Employment Tribunal acknowledged that the comment itself was serious enough that a fair process could have resulted in a lawful dismissal. 

Consequently, the claimant’s compensation was reduced by 65% due to contributory fault. This reflects the principle that the employee’s own conduct played a significant role in their exit. 

Key takeaways 

To avoid similar issues, businesses should: 

• Never rely on historical warnings or informal notes that should have been purged. 

• Development plans should not be weaponised during disciplinary hearings. 

• Even if the misconduct seems obvious, a failure to follow your own internal procedures can render a dismissal unfair. 

Managing suspect complaints 

The majority of workplace complaints are genuine; however, employers occasionally encounter grievances that seem tactical, inflated, or entirely manufactured. These suspect complaints are notoriously difficult to navigate. Mishandling them can lead to costly litigation, but failing to address bad faith can undermine your entire disciplinary framework. 

Identifying potential tactical grievances 

Objectivity is essential. While certain patterns may trigger suspicion, they do not automatically prove bad faith. HR should be alert to red flags such as: 

• Grievances submitted immediately after the start of a redundancy process, performance management, or disciplinary action. 

• Accounts that change over time or allegations that shift once evidence is presented. 

• A history of frequent, unsubstantiated grievances used to stall management processes. 

The importance of a standardised approach 

Regardless of your suspicions, every complaint must be treated with professional gravity. It is vital to remember that an unfounded allegation is not necessarily a dishonest one. The safest course of action is to: 

1. Adhere strictly to your standard grievance or whistleblowing policy 
2. Assign an unbiased investigator who has no prior involvement in the matter 
3. Maintain a neutral stance until all facts are gathered 

Gathering and weighing evidence 

A robust investigation is your best defence. You must rigorously test the claimant’s credibility by cross-referencing witness statements, digital footprints, and internal documentation. 

If the investigation concludes that the complaint is not upheld, but there is no definitive proof of malice, the matter should generally be closed without further action. 

When to consider disciplinary action 

Taking disciplinary action against a complainant is a high risk strategy. It should only be considered when there is irrefutable evidence that the allegation was intentionally fabricated. Before proceeding, ensure that: 

• Dishonesty is proven 

• A separate disciplinary procedure is conducted 

• Mitigation is considered (could stress, mental health issues, or genuine workplace conflict have influenced the employee’s behaviour?) 

In the most extreme cases, deliberately false accusations may constitute gross misconduct, potentially justifying summary dismissal. However, this must be a measured conclusion based on facts and never a knee-jerk response to a difficult employee. 

Key takeaways

By treating every complaint seriously and following an evidence-led process, you protect the organisation from legal liability while maintaining a fair and transparent workplace culture.

Collective redundancies 

When a business prepares for multiple redundancies, determining whether collective consultation duties are triggered is a critical first step. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), specific legal requirements apply if an employer proposes 20 or more redundancies at a single establishment within a 90-day window. 

New penalties 

The stakes for failing to consult have risen sharply. As of April 2026, the maximum protective award for failing to meet these obligations has doubled. Tribunals can now award up to 180 days’ gross pay per affected employee. For large organisations, this uncapped penalty represents a massive financial liability. 

A common misconception is that these rules only apply to traditional redundancies. In reality, the legal definition is broad and includes most no-fault dismissals. This includes dismissals for Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR), such as those arising from business reorganisations or ‘fire and re-hire’ scenarios. 

Key rules 

To calculate if you have hit the 20-employee trigger, keep the following in mind: 

• Voluntary redundancies are included in the headcount for the threshold. 

• If an FTC expires naturally, it is excluded. However, if you terminate an FTC early for redundancy, it counts. 

• The threshold is usually assessed per individual legal employer, not across an entire parent group. 

• Consultation is generally triggered per site or unit, rather than by adding up every redundancy across the UK. 

Proposing vs. completing 

The duty to consult is based on proposals, not past actions. Following the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Micro Focus v Mildenhall, the 90-day test is forward-looking. Employers must look at planned future dismissals rather than counting those already finalised. 

The Employment Rights Act 2025 

Significant changes are on the horizon, likely taking effect in 2027. The government is currently consulting on a new threshold that would look at redundancies across the entire business, regardless of the specific establishment. 

Current proposals suggest this business-wide trigger could be set at a total of 250 to 1,000 redundancies. Employers should monitor these developments closely, as they could fundamentally change how large-scale restructuring is managed. 

Key takeaways 

To protect the organisation, businesses should: 

1. Evaluate consultation duties at the proposal stage, well before any notices are issued. 
2. Ensure a minimum of 30 days for 20+ redundancies, or 45 days for 100+ redundancies. 
3. File the HR1 form (Failure to notify the Secretary of State via the HR1 form is a criminal offence). 

Navigating alternatives to dismissal 

When workplace issues arise, termination isn’t the only solution. Implementing a strategic transfer or a targeted training programme can often resolve the root cause of a problem while preserving the employment relationship. However, if these interventions are handled as informal quick fixes rather than formal contractual actions, they can create significant legal and operational risks. 

The strategic transfer 

Moving an employee to a different team, department, or location can be an effective way to de-escalate interpersonal friction or address poor fit in a specific environment. While lateral moves can prevent a situation from reaching a disciplinary breaking point, employers must proceed with caution: 

• Forcing a relocation or a change in role without a clear mobility clause or the employee’s express consent could be viewed as a fundamental breach of contract, potentially leading to a claim for constructive dismissal. 

• Even with a mobility clause, employers must act reasonably. This includes providing sufficient notice and considering the employee’s personal circumstances, such as caring responsibilities. 

• A transfer should not result in a material loss of status, seniority, or career prospects. 

• Simply moving a low performer to another department may just relocate the problem, causing wider disruption across the business. 

Training as a corrective measure 

Training is generally the least controversial alternative to dismissal, as it signals a desire to invest in the employee rather than punish them. 

• Technical training can bridge skill gaps, while behavioural coaching (e.g., following inappropriate comments) demonstrates that the employer is taking proactive steps to correct conduct. 

• Providing documented support makes a future dismissal much easier to defend. If an employee fails to improve despite being given the necessary tools and training, a tribunal is more likely to view a subsequent dismissal as fair. 

• Training must be relevant and professional. If it is perceived as a tick-box exercise or intentionally humiliating, it may further damage the relationship.  

• Training must be conducted during working hours unless stated otherwise.  

Key takeaways 

Whether opting for a transfer or a training plan, businesses should ensure every intervention is grounded in the following: 

1. Ensure the action is permitted by the employment contract or agreed upon in writing. 
2. Maintain a clear paper trail of the objectives, the support provided, and the expected outcomes. 
3. Ask if the intervention is a reasonable response to the specific issue at hand. 

Tribunals do not just look at whether you avoided dismissal; they look at whether the alternative was implemented fairly and legally. When supported by a clear process, these tools become powerful assets for talent retention rather than legal liabilities. 

This rewrite is tailored for an HR bulletin, maintaining a professional and supportive tone while using UK English. It reframes the legal and cultural context to ensure the content is original.

Neurodiversity in the workplace 

Following Neurodiversity Celebration Week last month, the spotlight has returned to how modern organisations support neurodiversity in the workplace. For HR, this is a critical area of legal compliance and risk management. 

There has been significant public discussion, and some political scepticism, regarding the rise in diagnoses for conditions like ADHD and Autism. 

From a legal standpoint, the validity of a label is secondary to a much more important question: Is the employee experiencing a workplace disadvantage, and can reasonable steps be taken to mitigate it? 

Defining neurodivergence under the Equality Act 2010 

Neurodivergence serves as a broad term encompassing conditions such as Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, ADHD, and Autism. Under the Equality Act 2010, many individuals with these conditions will meet the legal definition of disability if their condition: 

• Is a physical or mental impairment 

• Has a substantial and long-term negative effect 

• Impacts normal day-to-day activities (e.g., social interaction, concentration, or following instructions) 

Crucially, a formal medical diagnosis is not a prerequisite for legal protection. Tribunals prioritise the functional impact of a condition over a clinical name. Given current NHS backlogs, an employer’s duty to consider reasonable adjustments can be triggered as soon as they become aware of an employee’s ongoing difficulties. 

Lessons from tribunals 

Case law consistently shows that failing to account for neurodivergent traits can lead to successful discrimination claims: 

• In Sherbourne v N Power, the employer failed to adapt an open-plan office for an employee with Asperger’s, resulting in a breach of duty. 

• In Jandu v Marks & Spencer, selection processes that inadvertently penalised a dyslexic employee were ruled unlawful. 

• In Borg-Neal v Lloyds Bank Plc, a dismissal linked to behaviours arising directly from the employee’s dyslexia resulted in a significant compensation award. 

Key takeaways 

To manage neurodiversity effectively, HR should: 

• Act early and not wait for a formal letter from a GP. If an employee is struggling, start the conversation about adjustments immediately. 

• Use occupational health specialists to understand how a specific environment (lighting, noise, or communication styles) affects the individual. 

• Provide training so that line managers can recognise neurodivergent traits and respond with empathy rather than discipline. 

• Remember that the duty is to make reasonable adjustments. You are not required to implement changes that are disproportionately expensive or operationally impossible, but you must demonstrate that you have engaged in the process. 

HR’s role is not to act as a medical arbiter or to weigh in on societal debates. Our responsibility is to ensure the workplace remains inclusive, productive, and legally compliant. 

The power of the appeal 

An appeal is often an employer’s final opportunity to rectify procedural errors and demonstrate overall fairness. Under the Acas Code of Practice, appeals must be handled impartially and without unnecessary delay. 

Review vs. rehearing 

Before the hearing begins, HR must determine the scope of the appeal. This usually depends on the employee’s grounds for challenge: 

• The review focuses on whether the original decision was reasonable based on the evidence available at the time. 

• The full rehearing involves reconsidering the entire case from scratch. A rehearing is often the safest route if the employee alleges bias, or if significant procedural defects occurred during the initial disciplinary stage. 

Selecting the appeal manager 

Acas recommends appointing a manager who is more senior than the original decision-maker and who has had no prior involvement in the case. While absolute independence isn’t always possible in smaller firms, the manager must demonstrate total objectivity. 

Key takeaways 

A dismissal that is otherwise sound can be overturned if the appeal is treated as a tick-box exercise. In Milrine v DHL, a dismissal was ruled unfair specifically because the appeal process was flawed, despite the earlier disciplinary stages being handled correctly. 

The appeal must be a genuine reconsideration. It is your safety net for catching errors before they reach a tribunal. 

Case study: avoiding the school playground trap 

Sometimes, the factual background of a tribunal claim feels less like a professional dispute and more like a row from a school playground. The case of Billings v Nestle UK is a perfect example. 

The facts 

Mr Billings was dismissed for gross misconduct following an investigation into a factory fire alarm, which was allegedly triggered by him vaping in the toilets. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair for several reasons: 

• The disciplinary officer admitted that if Mr Billings had confessed and apologised, he wouldn’t have been sacked. The tribunal ruled that a failure to apologise is not misconduct and should not be a deciding factor in dismissal. 

• Given Mr Billings’ long and unblemished service, summary dismissal for a single, isolated act was deemed to be outside the range of reasonable responses. 

• The employer had no specific policy stating that vaping was a gross misconduct offence. 

Key takeaways 

• If you want to treat vaping as a sackable offence, your staff handbook must state this explicitly. 

• An employee’s length of service and clean record are heavy weights on the scales of justice. Summary dismissal for a first-time, non-dangerous offence is rarely seen as proportionate. 

• Disciplinary officers must avoid being swayed by an employee’s lack of remorse or perceived attitude. Stick to the evidence of the alleged misconduct