Monthly Bulletin July 2026

Electronic and workplace balloting: what employers need to know

The Government has published a draft Code of Practice introducing electronic and workplace voting options for statutory trade union ballots, set to take effect in August 2026.

With this new system, the choice of ballot methods is no longer up to employers, instead trade unions will decide whether to conduct statutory ballots electronically, by post, or in the workplace.

Employers must prepare to consider formal requests for workplace balloting and provide constructive, fair reasons in cases of rejection.

In cases of acceptance, a formal voluntary access agreement must be signed beforehand with details of times, dates, locations etc. The agreement must explicitly outline financial and legal consequences if either the employer or union breaches the terms stated. It is also important to note that employers are not required to cover the operational costs.

Bonus schemes: have caution when changing rules

A recent Employment Tribunal, ‘Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd’, serves as a clear message that employers must be cautious when changing bonus scheme rules.

Chandrashekarappa v Wipro Ltd

In this case, the employee was told that he could receive a discretionary “kitty bonus” percentage of the company earnings and this was then approved by the sector lead.

Before the bonus was paid, the employer brought in new conditions, such as adding another level of approval beyond the sector lead and capping the amount of money that the employee could receive. This resulted in the employee being paid far less that what was originally agreed.

Employment Tribunal outcome

The tribunal found that the employer had imposed unlawful deductions from the employee’s bonus wages and found that once the sector lead had approved the bonus under the original rules communicated, the employer was then entitled to it by law.

Key takeaways

To make sure your bonus policy is abiding by employment law, remember that:

• Labelling a bonus as “discretionary” doesn’t grant employers the autonomy to change the conditions that were originally agreed upon.
• Any clauses that an employer wishes to be included in a scheme should be detailed in any documents and discussions before the scheme takes place.

Protected beliefs and workplace comments

The Employment Tribunal of Eweida v British Airways 2013 has long provided a strong reminder that discrimination protection extends past having a religion or belief to include how this belief is expressed. The principal message of this outcome still stands and was considered recently during another tribunal.

London Ambulance Service v Garrett

In this case, a paramedic was disciplined after raising a workplace discussion surrounding his belief that “systemic racism does not exist”. He stated that this discipline was a form of discrimination against his belief in equal racial treatment.

The Employment Tribunal rejected this claim. Despite the fact that the employee’s belief in equal treatment was capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010, his comments surrounding systematic racism were not a manifestation of this belief.

Key takeaways

HR professionals must remember that:

• A protected belief doesn’t provide protection for every workplace comment made by an employee.
• If the connection between a workplace comment and a protected belief is too weak, there is little legal protection to back it up.

The future of carers’ employment rights

A government discussion regarding stronger employment rights for unpaid carers is underway. The consultation, determining the future rights of unpaid carers and parents of critically unwell children, will close on the 1st September 2026 with an answer to:

• Increasing the amount of unpaid carers’ leave
• Introducing statutory entitlement to paid carers’ leave
• A right to return to a role after a long caring-related absence

Hugh’s Law

The consultation is also reviewing “Hugh’s Law”, a proposal that, if put into motion, would grant financial support and additional leave for caregivers after the serious illness diagnosis of a child.

The impact

While nothing has been confirmed as of yet, HR professionals would be wise to keep an eye on any developments of this consultation. The challenges faced by employees attempting to balance work and caring responsibilities are long overdue a legal spotlight. From a HR perspective, more legal support would improve an employee’s attendance, productivity, and all-round wellbeing.

Unfair vs. Wrongful dismissal

An Employment Tribunal has recently restarted the conversation around unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal and why it’s so important to consider the entire circumstance of an employee’s behaviour before making a decision on dismissal, especially in cases where gross misconduct is identified.

XX v YY

An assistant head teacher was summarily dismissed without notice after sending a sexual message to an individual she believed was a minor. However, the employer acknowledged she did so under extreme duress, trapped in a coercive and controlling relationship where she feared severe harm to herself and her children.

After an unsuccessful initial wrongful dismissal claim, the Employment Tribunal changed their original decision, ruling that the first court was wrong to ignore the extreme pressure the employee was under. They confirmed that when deciding if an employee’s behaviour is bad enough to justify an instant firing, you cannot solely look at the action in question. You must look at the whole picture objectively and consider the surrounding circumstances as well.

Key takeaways

HR professionals should remember that:

• Employee conduct cannot be assessed in isolation. Despite instances of gross misconduct, the whole picture must be considered before making dismissal decisions
• Even if the decision to remove the employee from the business is legally sound, labelling an act as gross misconduct can put a business in danger of successful wrongful dismissal claims for unpaid notice periods.

Disability discrimination

This recent Employment Tribunal has pulled employer assumptions on employee disabilities into the spotlight and led to a successful employee discrimination claim.

Cunningham vs BBC

The employee in question suffered from severe fatigue due to their type two diabetes. The BBC knew about this condition and had modified some of the employee’s shifts but still required her to work until 12:30am. After she made an error on a late shift, she faced disciplinary action, leading her to make a disability discrimination claim.

The BBC argued that they didn’t know exactly how the employee was disabled and argued this to the Employment Tribunal, but their argument was rejected. The tribunal stated that because the BBC knew of the employee’s diabetes, knew about the fatigue it caused, and had received Occupational Health (OH) advice on appropriate adjustments for Cunningham, they had constructive knowledge enough to know better.

Key takeaways

The lessons from this tribunal for HR professionals is clear:

• Don’t assume an employee is not disabled just because OH or employee sick notes don’t use that explicit term.
• If you have information that suggests an employee’s condition may affect their workplace well-being, it should not be ignored.

Data protection employer obligations

Under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, individuals have a statutory right to file data protection complaints directly with an organisation before escalating to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Every organisation must establish an accessible internal process to receive, handle, and track data protection complaints. This new policy also means employers must formally acknowledge complaints within 30 days of receipt and investigate/respond “without undue delay.”

Complaints that could be filed include:

• Mistakes in personnel records
• Concerns about AI use when making employment decisions
• Delays in responses to subject access requests
• The inappropriate sharing of personal information
• Employee monitoring

What this means for HR teams

This change in data protection law means HR teams should efficiently update existing company policies surrounding their company’s handling of employee and customer data. Here’s what you should consider:

• Update your privacy documentation and Subject Access Request (SAR) template responses.
• Implement training for HR and management team in recognising and handling data protection complaints and concerns.
• Begin internal logging to track when complaints are received, the acknowledgement shown, and steps taken to investigate.

Digital payslips

Under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, workers must receive an itemised pay statement on or before payday showing gross pay, net pay, deductions, and payment methods. This recent Employment Tribunal decision has brought clarity on digital payslips and employee access.

Leedham v Royal Mail Group

In the case Leedham v Royal Mail Group, the employee argued that the company’s transition to a digital-only payroll system led to the employer failing to provide him with a payslip because he hadn’t received a physical copy.

The Employment Tribunal rejected this claim, confirming that an electronic payslip satisfies the legal requirements of providing a payslip, so long as it is easy to access and provides all of the necessary information.

Key takeaways

While this case appears simple, HR professionals should look further into the hidden details:

• The tribunal were sure to mention that if an employee genuinely cannot access an electronic system due to a lack of technology or digital know-how, this could trigger a successful legal challenge.
• The key to compliance is making sure digital payroll systems are straightforward and extremely accessible for all users.

Indirect discrimination in childcare

This Employment Tribunal highlights the importance of employer awareness when implementing blanket policies that disproportionately affect certain groups over others.

Dobson v NHS Trust

Mrs Dobson, a nurse working fixed days, was required to work occasional Saturdays under a new company policy. She claimed indirect sex discrimination due to childcare issues.

UK courts still legally recognise women as the bearers of primary childcare responsibilities. Because of this, blanket rules demanding weekend or flexible shifts naturally disadvantage female workers more than male workers.

The Employment Tribunal accepted that the Saturday police disadvantaged women over male workers, but her claim ultimately failed as the Trust was able to prove legal justification and necessity of the rule.

Key takeaways

HR professionals should remember to:

• Assess group and individual impacts when implementing policies
• Explore alternatives and compromises with negatively affected employees, even if they haven’t raised said policies as a concern yet.
• Ensure that policies can be clearly justified as genuine necessities for the business

AI’s first litigation success

Our final Employment Tribunal for this month’s bulletin shows a modern victory regarding a freelancer’s recovery of unpaid fees, thanks to the assistance of an AI-powered law firm.

Garfield AI

AI handled the administrative preparation prior to the freelancer’s trial, including drafting witness statements and analysing documents. For the actual hearing, a human barrister was still required to present the case, but this is being recognised as a victory for AI.

As AI is slowly creeping into most aspects of working life, employers should remember that human oversight remains crucial for staying on the right side of employment law.