Labour’s Employment Rights Bill

 

Amy: Hello and welcome to the Employment Law Focus podcast. I'm Amy Stokes.

 

Charlie: And I'm Charlie Ray 

 

Amy: and we're both employment law partners at TLT and today we're going to be discussing the Employment Rights Bill and well all 150 pages of it, well not quite but what we've done is we have discussed amongst ourselves Charlie and I and pulled out our top 10 takeaways from it. 

 

By way of background, this was introduced to Parliament on the 10th of October and is the first phase of delivering the government's plan to make work pay. It brings in 28 individual employment law reforms. And the bill is a wish list of reforms, and it builds in some of the labour manifesto but a watered down version so it's not quite set in stone.

 

Despite the headlines in the papers, it's a while before any of these changes are going to happen. Much of the details are going to be provided via regulations which won't be passed until consultation with stakeholders has concluded. Four of those consultations were very quickly turned around and have actually already started. Those include on zero hours contracts and their application to agency workers, beefing up the remedies for collective redundancy consultation, all the updates to trade union legislation and also statutory sick pay. 

 

The government doesn't expect to start consultation however for the rest of the reforms until 2025, with the result that most reforms in the bill will not take place until we anticipate at least 2026, although there's been no commitment on that just yet. The bills also got to go through both houses of parliament before it gains royal assent and therefore may be changed along the way after the consultations as well. 

 

So the bottom line is really that the proposals in the bill might well change and employers are going to have plenty of time to feed into the proposals and to prepare for them. 

 

What Charlie and I have done to prepare for this podcast today is that we've picked out what we think are the most interesting elements of the bill, the reforms to the bill, primarily to employers. And we're going to run through them, not in the order of importance, just kind of in a more general order, just to give you a flavour of what they are. So, we'll talk through the background to them, the detail of the reforms, to give you a bit of an explainer on those. And then we're going to give you some of our insights from practice about what we think the real impact of those are going to be. 

 

So, Charlie, do you want to kick us off with your first one? 

 

Charlie: Yeah, we're going to start with probably what's been the main headline grabber from the bill, which is the proposal to remove the unfair dismissal qualifying period. Now, as we know, at the moment, we've had for some time a two -year qualifying period to be able to claim ordinary unfair dismissal. That doesn't take into account automatic unfair dismissals like whistleblowing, for example, where you don't need the two-year service, but for most unfair dismissal claims, two years service is required.

 

So the idea is that it's going to become a day one right, and that so long as you started work from day one, you will have the right to claim unfair dismissal. The government are proposing to consult on introducing a new statutory probation period. So, the idea is that during that probation period, an employee could be dismissed using a lighter touch process, where if the dismissal is because of capability, or conduct, or contravention of illegal duty, or potentially for some other substantial reason, which are all reasons that we're familiar with now, that that would be a valid reason for an employer to terminate at the end of this probation period. 

 

We need some detail on this, obviously, and one suggestion is that a redundancy dismissal wouldn't be subject to this lighter touch dismissal as a result of the statutory probation period. So it will be interesting to see how that one plays out. The suggestion is that the government's preference is to have a nine -month probation period in this so -called initial period of employment and I think the indication is that they would expect an employer to at least hold a meeting with the employee to explain the concerns about say their performance if that's the reason before making a decision to dismiss. So, it's going to be interesting to see how the government will develop that. 

 

Amy: Yeah it's really interesting actually Charlie, I think that there's going to be the consultation on that's going to bring out some interesting points. But actually, it sounds like it's going to have a really big impact on employers. What do you think in practice that's really going to be? 

 

Charlie: Certainly one of the implications is likely to be that more litigation may follow as a result of widening out the net to who it covers. I saw a statistic that suggests that this will grant unfair dismissal rights to another 9 million employees. So, straight away, the prospect of litigation is going to be increased. There's a question that I've seen floated as to how long an employer would need to be able to make a decision about whether an employee should stay in the role beyond this initial employment period. 

 

And nine months, is that long enough? I think many employers would probably be hard pressed to think that nine months isn't long enough to make a decision about whether an employee is suitable for their role. What I think it will be in practice is that employers are going to have to tighten up their processes. 

 

I mean, many employers at the minute do follow quite good probationary review processes where issues that might lead to an employee failing their probation period are flagged in good time and discussed, and therefore no surprise to the employee if they fail their probation period as a result of it. But not all employers do that. 

 

And so, I think if you're going to take advantage of this new statutory probation period, it's going to mean employers have to tighten up their processes in handling probation reviews and probation decisions. I think it's also going to mean employers are going to need to ensure that they follow their redundancy processes in all cases because of the suggestion that redundancies wouldn't be part of this probationary review dismissal option. So, yeah, I think it's going to be quite a big change for employers this, if it comes in the way suggested. So, yeah, keep your eye on that one. 

 

Amy: Yeah, and plenty of time to plan as well. I think that's a key point. As you say, some employers are already utilizing probation periods pretty well. So actually looking at that and expanding that practice more widely, I think is important. So, Thanks, Charlie. 

 

So the first one from me moving on is the very hotly anticipated reform in relation to fire and rehire. It gets all the headlines that the way that it's been described. It's hit the press enormously given the large scale and perceived abuse of this by some employers. And so just to explain, firing rehire is essentially a tool, and actually in some cases a very useful tool, that employers use to change terms and conditions in the event that employees won't agree to those through a consultation process. 

 

Importantly, the employees retain their continuous service, so that's the rehire piece. It's not just fire, it's rehiring the retain that continuous service. And it's often after a consultation period with unions or staff reps, and in my experience, and I'm sure yours as well, Charlie, it's very much used as a last resort. It was to be banned initially but then Labour realised that if they only addressed fire and rehire businesses are simply just going to fire employees and then rehire different employees which is what P &O Ferries did and that was all over the press as well. 

 

What the bill proposes is that dismissals for refusing to agree to a variation will be automatically unfair where either the employee or another employee will be re -employed or employed to carry out substantially the same work. An exception there is going to be where essentially a business is on its knees and about to fall over. And so to use the proper term for that, it's where the employee can show evidence of financial difficulties, which or carry on the activities of the business and that in all of the circumstances, it could not avoid the need to make the variation. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, I mean, what do we make of that defence, Amy? Is that going to be a way, do we think, of keeping in the right to fire and rehire through the back door or is it going to be difficult to meet that defence? What do we think? 

 

Amy: Yeah, it's an interesting one. So, we thought that this would be a complete ban on it, and they

obviously introduced that defence. And the financial difficulties defence seems quite a hard one to run, given that an employer essentially needs to show that in all of the circumstances, the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make that variation. So they're going to need to be in some serious financial difficulty to satisfy that test, so in liquidation or in solvency. 

 

So I think it's going to be really narrow, but I think the important kind of take away from this is, as I mentioned at the beginning, this does fall short of a total ban on fire and re-hire hire, which is what Labour had initially committed to do. However, it may as well be a ban with the enormously high bar that's been set to that exception. As we say with all of these, the devil's going to be in the detail. And I do think that these provisions will be contested by some employees in the consultation, there certainly needs to be a bit more clarification given on that financial difficulties, defence as well. Employers are undoubtedly going to have to produce accounts and all that kind of stuff as well, which would be quite interesting. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, no, it certainly is. And actually, another area that we heard might have been banned is the third topic we're going to look at, which is the ending of exploitative zero hours contracts. And that's the phraseology that was being used by the Labour Party prior to the election, that they wanted to end the use of exploitative contracts that are zero hours ones. And many had speculated that meant they were going to ban them all together. And the bill makes clear that's not what they're planning to do. Instead, what it's going to do is propose to put an obligation on employees to have to offer these so -called guaranteed hours contracts to those who are on mainly zero hours contracts, but also those who are on minimum hours contracts as well to reflect the hours that they're regularly working over a reference period. And we're understanding that reference period is likely to be 12 weeks. 

 

So that's going to be quite an interesting change for employers that use zero hours contracts, that the stats show over a million individuals are engaged on these type of contracts in the UK. So, it'll affect a lot of people. The idea of this offer is one that the worker wouldn't have to accept it. So what we might find, and this is where some of the detail will be quite interesting, is that if hours become more regular over time or increase over time, whether subsequent reference periods are going to mean that the workers are going to have the chance to be offered, again, the opportunity to have one of these guaranteed hours contracts reflecting what they might think is a better offer and is there going to be this ongoing obligation to update offers?

 

I guess the expectation is that if the offer is then accepted that then they go on to one of these guaranteed hours contracts and they're no longer on the same basis that they were prior to that as an ordinary zero hours worker. So, going to be interested to see how that detail plays out. I think And this will affect quite a lot of businesses, particularly those in say the hospitality industry which traditionally uses a lot of these zero hours worker contracts. There's going to be consultation on this with employers and trade unions about how these review periods are going to work. And the government have said, it's interesting actually, they said that where they think that the work is genuinely temporary, there's not going to be any expectation on employers to offer these permanent contracts. But I've seen a lot of commentary that suggests that this might encourage businesses to use fixed term contracts more, albeit how that'll interact with the removal of the qualification period for unfair dismissal will be interesting to see. 

 

A separate point actually of interest is that the bill also proposes a right for eligible workers to receive reasonable notice of changes to their working hours. And also a big change, I think, the idea that they can be eligible for compensation if their shift is cancelled or ended early. And there'll be a lot of detail in there then about what is going to trigger this right compensation, what's reasonable notice? All of those sorts of areas are the devil in the detail that you described at the start of the podcast, Amy. But yeah, lots of changes here, aren't there? 

 

Amy: There are really. And as you mentioned, the details quite significant there, and there's going to be a lot more discussion in relation to it. And it seems really complicated as one of the most complicated reforms that we've looked at when we've worked through it. Do we think it's really going to achieve what the government's aims are on zero -hours contracts and the exploitative nature of them. What's your view on that, Charlie? 

 

Charlie: Yeah, I mean, these are really complicated rules. It made my head hurt trying to get my understanding of what's going to be proposed and how the detail will be played out. I've seen loads of articles that go on for quite some time examining the what -ifs and the suggestion that there's going to be quite a few unintended consequences. So What we think might happen is that employers might be less likely to offer zero or low hours contracts or might offer fewer shifts to those on those contracts in order to avoid the prospect of then having to offer guaranteed hours contracts that might not reflect a pattern that they can then fulfil. 

 

Equally, there's lots of areas of concern about seasonal contracts, those that work in agriculture or in hospitality, where there are seasonal fluctuations. It's not clear how these rules are gonna address the prospect that there could be peaks and troughs in work. And so if an individual is entitled to say, well, I want my guaranteed hours contract to reflect that peak time. And yet then the business might not be able to fulfil it. So, the impact is gonna, I think, depend on how some of these key details get consulted on and what the government decided to do in respect of them. Things like what's the definition of a low hour is going to be, what's the regularity of hours required, what's the level of compensation for a breach of the advanced notice duty. A lot of the detail isn't there yet, but for businesses that use zero hours contracts, this I think will be a big change. 

 

Amy: The drafts people are going to have a good time with that one, aren't they. So, yeah, watch this space, I think, on that one. 

 

Charlie: Agreed.

 

Amy: So, moving on to the next reform, which is the reforms to the sexual harassment, the duty to prevent sexual harassment. We had a new duty which came in on the 26th of October. And the new duty is that the employer will take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and what the reform is doing is proposing to change that to take all reasonable steps rather than just taking reasonable steps. So, it's the inclusion of the word "all" which is important here as well. 

 

The new duty might include things like carrying out assessments, publishing plans or policies, reporting sexual harassment and handling complaints, but actually it's a much higher bar than the current duty that we're dealing with at the moment, so that's quite an important... There were previously going to include it as all reasonable steps, and then they removed the ‘all’, and then obviously now they're proposing to add that back in again. It's amazing what a small single word can do in the circumstances to increase the duty so significantly. In addition to that, they're also talking about reintroducing a duty to prevent third -party harassment. That was a previous duty that we had a few years ago and then it was repealed and they're talking about bringing that in. Whether that's a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent third -party harassment or just to take reasonable steps remains to be seen and is subject to consultation. 

 

This is going to have a real impact, particularly in the leisure and hospitality industry where you're working with customers potentially under the influence of alcohol and things like that as well, it's going to be quite a tricky duty to comply with and I think that was part of the reason why it was repealed previously. So that's certainly an important point and a takeaway, I think, from that element of the bill. And then in addition to that, the reforms provide that disclosures relating to sexual harassment will be protected as qualifying whistleblowing disclosures.

 

Currently, they're not specifically protected in that way. It would have to fall normally under kind of victimization elements, but actually they're talking about increasing that and including it in a whistleblowing disclosure as well. 

 

Charlie: Interesting, those aren't they Amy? I think, and in fact, it reminds me that we were talking only the other day about what our experience was of our clients preparing for the duty that came in only a few weeks ago to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. And what do you think about whether this change will alter the approach we've seen our clients taking so far? 

 

Amy: Yes, it's interesting, really. Obviously, it's quite a surprise that suddenly it's brought back in again when the duty was only imposed a few weeks ago, really. And we've had a real wide change of how clients are prepared for this. Some have introduced training, have taken it extremely seriously, looked at their policies, reporting processes, all that kind of stuff. So they are essentially taking all reasonable steps already because of all of the different elements that they put in. And then other clients are quite comfortable with the current processes that they have in place. They've done very little. It's passed them by a little bit as well. I think that actually potentially that's part of the reason for reintroducing the all -reasonable steps piece, actually, to ensure that employers do take positive, proper positive steps in order to prepare for this, and I think that it will focus the mind, I think, in relation to what employers are doing there. 

 

Certainly, it's going to increase the potential for employment tribunal claims, particularly with the whistleblowing piece, although question whether that's already protected in a different way. But certainly the third party harassment side in the hospitality industry, there has been some concern in relation to that already and it's a real hot topic about how that extension of the duty will be managed by those types of employers. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, okay, no interesting stuff. And another change that we wanted to have a look at is the proposed changes to the Right to request flexible working. Many of our listeners will know that at the moment Employees can make a flexible working request up to two times per year and that the employee would have to deal with that request reasonably and Can then potentially refuse the request if they decide that that's what they want to do for one of those eight reasons Which are pretty wide reasons as we know The proposal here is that the government wants to try and tighten up what the rules say about refusing a request and the proposal is that employers would be able to refuse a flexible working request on specified grounds, which are the same grounds that we currently have actually, but that they'd only be able to do so if it was reasonable to rely on that ground and that in addition an employer would need to explain in writing to the employee, why their refusal is reasonable in the employer's view. So more narrow changes there, I think, to this. 

 

Amy: Yeah, Is there much change here at all? What do you think, Charlie? I don't know. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, it's a fair question. I think what we probably remember is that the government, when they were talking about this change prior to the election, we're using phraseology along the lines of that they wanted to make flexible working the default position for all and that only if an employer could prove that it's an unreasonable request could they get out of the obligation to allow a flexible working request. I mean, the argument I've been reading about is that the bill doesn't really go as far to do to do that at all. As all of these things are, it's subject to consultation. If all we're going to see is an adding of the requirement that the reason has to be reasonable and has to be expressed as to why that's reasonable, but it's based on the same grounds and the same obligation to follow it reasonably as a process and the same potential compensation. Ultimately, it might just ball down to employers just need to give clearer reasons as to why they're turning it down. So a lot of the talk prior to the election was about how they're going to introduce a right to a four -day working week. I saw that narrated quite a bit and this certainly doesn't get anywhere near that. So yeah, to your question, is there a lot of change here? Probably not on this one.

 

Amy: So, I'm now going to move on to my next one, and I think you need to strap yourselves into this one because this is trade union reforms now, and there's quite a lot to go. We could have done the whole podcast on this really, so what I'm aiming to do really is just take you through the headlines of that and then talk about the key impact and insights that this proposed reform might have. So there are several provisions that have been badged as empowering workers to organised collectively through trade unions. And essentially, the Labour government are badging in the press that this is removing the red tape on trade union activity. So just to give you a little bit of the detail, and I think it's important that you understand this, is that they are intending on repealing much of the trade union act from 2016. And this includes, importantly, the requirements for at least 50 % of union members to participate in a ballot for industrial action for that industrial action to then be legal. They're also talking about repealing the requirements for 40% support amongst union members to proceed with industrial action in vital public services. And then this is a key one, reducing the notice for that needs to be given for industrial action from 14 days, which is what it is currently, once there is a successful ballot and they need to give 14 days notice of any actual strike action, they've been talking about reducing that down to seven days, so not a lot of time there at all for businesses to prepare for industrial action. 

 

And then also kind of linked to that, they are talking about currently there is a six month mandate in place, so where there is a successful ballot for strike action, that mandate remains in place for six months. That's in consultation to increase it to a 12 -month period. So if there is a dispute, they could potentially call for strike action any time in 12 months rather than six at the moment. 

 

So in addition to that, they're also looking at repealing the Strikes Minimum Service Act, and that was introduced not that long ago actually, to mitigate industrial action and the effect on critical sectors such as health services, education, transport, etc. And then in addition to that, there's some other reforms that I wanted to pull out. The first is that they are going to require employers to notify new employees of their right to join a union and regularly remind them of that. In addition, granting unions, and I think this is quite an important one, so granting unions the right to request workplace access to both recruit and organise, so that's not where there is a recognised trade union, that's any union can request right to a workplace. Currently they can't actually access that, they have no right of access, but they're talking about introducing the right to request, I think it's important to request that as well. And then they're also talking about simplifying the statutory recognition process, so statutory recognition of a trade union by removing the requirement for unions to secure backing of at least 40 % of the workforce in the bargaining unit in order to start that process. 

 

The government have said that they are committed to a for consultation on this and actually that's already started and is one of the ones that's already started as well so I think that the general consensus is actually the trade union reform is going to be one of the first elements of the bill that will be introduced along with fire and rehire, just because I think that's a key part of the labour manifesto, obviously, with them being back for it so heavily by the trade unions. I think the key point here is the real impact that this is going to have on businesses. So whilst the collective voice of employees is of course important and a number of the employers that work with and focus heavily on maintaining positive industrial relations. 

 

There is a concern that the repeal, in particular of the Trade Union Act, the reduced notice period for strikes, that could actually hinder employers' ability to manage effectively during a period of strike or industrial action. And the minimum service levels as well being repealed, there's all sorts of chatter and I've seen both sides of this in relation to that, about whether it's going to increase the burden on the public and employers and all this kind of stuff. But actually, when it was introduced, it was deeply unpopular and the consensus was, and the CIPD actually put forward a point on this as well, that they actually thought that the Minimum Services Act damaged the relationship between employers and unions as well and created this mistrust. And also, it was really of in terms of which employees were to provide that minimum service and all that kind of stuff. So it was actually quite unpopular really. 

 

Charlie: A lot to get our heads around there, isn't there? I wonder whether employers that do unions a bit, but not a lot, but whether that's going to have quite an impact on them if all of these changes are made. There'll be a lot to change in their approach.

 

Amy: You're absolutely right, Charlie. And I think that that's, We have these clients, don't we, that regularly deal with unions, and I do a lot of work in the union field. That's kind of my specialism, but I think that the key thing is those smaller employees that are not unionized already, the right of access for trade unions to recruit, it's certainly going to lead to further requests for recognition.

 

And actually, because it's really unknown that some of these are smaller employees. There's a real kind of reluctance to engage with unions. There's a there is a lot of concern that surrounds that. And actually, if it is looking, and I do think that going forward, if these proposals are implemented, because of the how much easier it will be to obtain statutory recognition, there is a piece for employees that are approaching that process of statutory recognition to look at a voluntary arrangements in place, so doing a bit of work in terms of kind of trying to work with unions already, or actually implementing staff representative organisations and working more effectively with them as well, just to ensure that there is engagement and looking at it in a positive way. And just a kind of closing point on this. For those employers who have heavily unionised workforces, a lot of the clients that we work with at the moment are looking at their contingency plans for dealing with industrial action, what those might look like, because undoubtedly this is going to lead to more industrial action if it is implemented. So considering now kind of comms strategies for that, what you'll do, how you'll manage it, all that kind of stuff as well, I think is a really key takeaway from this one. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, there are big changes there. An ally to engaging with unions actually, our seventh highlight is about collective redundancy consultation. And many of us will remember, gosh, it was it's almost 10 years ago now, the decisions in the Woolworth case when Woolworths became insolvent. 

 

And as part of the redundancy consultation exercise, each store was deemed to be treated as a separate establishment, which meant that employees who were employed in a store that had fewer than 20 employees weren't entitled to a redundancy protective award. We've lived with that position ever since so that redundancies at an establishment are what might trigger the potentially 20 or more up to 99 and then when you get beyond 100 you're into a 45 -day consultation rather than the 30 -day consultation that applies when you're under 100. So that's the position we've left with since the Woolworth decision and that we've abided by. 

 

So the proposal is going to remove the requirement that redundancies need to be at one establishment in relation to the duty to consult representatives and the duty to notify the Secretary of State. And what it will mean is that employers who are making redundancies, and we remember that the definition of redundancy goes beyond just the pure definition of redundancy under the Employment Rights Act, so it could encapsulate, say, any changes to terms and conditions, subject to what you were talking about earlier, Amy, and that they're going to need to top up the numbers of employees who are affected by these proposals over a rolling 90 -day period. And if they trigger the 20 or more, then that would trigger the obligation to carry out the collective consultation requirements. So a big change for employers, this is already subject to consultation as we do this podcast that opened on the 21st of October.

 

 It goes on to ask for views on increasing the maximum protective award from the current 90 days up to 180 days, or even to removing it altogether, which would be a massive change from what we've been used to in this sphere. In addition, there's this suggestion that an employee or employees, as might well be the case, in a collector situation, might be able to apply for an interim relief application that would give them the right to continue to be paid until their case is heard, which at current rates could well be, say, a year or even more hence. So big changes here in this area.

 

Amy: There really are and it's just picking up on one of the points that you made about the protective award. It's the only compensation award which is punitive in nature. Everything else is based on losses or injury to feelings or something like that and employment tribunals, but so increasing it is going to have a significant impact and removing it all together. I don't even know where you would start with that.

 

Charlie: It is, I completely So that would be a profound change and a much bigger risk to employers if, say, the protected award was uncapped and not subject to a limit. I mean, it already can tot up to quite a big number, and as you say, being a putative award, they tend to say, well, we'll start at the top of the range and reduce it if we think you've done things that And, you know, it can actually, when you're looking at the numbers involved, it can be quite a big liability for businesses. And what I can see is that this is going to just create potential more banana skins for businesses if they're going to have to look at 90 -day rolling periods.

 

You take a multiple site larger business, they're going to need to look potentially across their whole business and see whether they trigger the numbers. And a lot of businesses might not have the systems in place to ensure that that gets picked up all the time. So big changes would be needed for businesses if this is what happens. 

 

Amy: Absolutely. And I don't think, I like the use of the word banana skins, by the way, Charlie, that certainly we should use that more often is that it's creating more banana skins for businesses. But yeah, interesting point and probably something that's not going to be that welcomed by employers, I would say potentially either. Yeah, like a few of the changes we're describing, that this is not one that employers are likely to find very welcome. 

 

Amy: No, just a couple of kind of notes to point. So, the eighth one that we've picked out is actually the single enforcement body. We don't have a lot of information on this, we just thought it was quite interesting. And so, what they're allowing, the bill allows for the establishment of a new fair work agency. And what this is going to do is enable enforcement of labour market legislation, which includes legislation relating to holiday pay and SSP by the Secretary of State. It's anticipated that this agency is going to bring together all the different government agencies and enforcement bodies with the aim to create what they say is a stronger, recognizable single organization that people know where to go to for help. And just to point just an observation on this really, it talks about people to know where to go to help. 

 

And obviously they mean employers there and they're looking at kind of enforcement of different elements of it. But actually also from our perspective kind of feeding into the consultation, looking at whether there should be better support for employers as well, particularly smaller employers who really want to comply with the law. And it's very complicated. There's lots of banana skins, as Charlie mentioned before, but actually ensuring that they have the assistance where they want to have that compliance to actually work with them. So, we very much welcome the single enforcement body, but actually looking at it from a kind of wider perspective so that all stakeholders who will engage with them are properly involved because it's not always the case at the moment with some of the enforcement bodies that we have currently. 

 

Charlie: Yeah and let's look at our ninth highlight which is some of the day one leave rights and the new bereavement leave entitlements. So the plan is that the government wants to remove the qualifying period for unpaid parental leave which presently is that eight weeks entitlement to leave up to a child's 18th birthday and the two week statutory paternity leave rights. The idea is that they will make those day one rights for employees. And in addition to that, another point to flag is the new day one right to bereavement leave. So this is any employee that's going to be bereaved. And the current thinking is that it would be up to two weeks bereavement leave paid at statutory rates. If it's a child that the individual is bereaved for and one week if it's not a child. So we'll need to get more detail around this. The relationship, for example, with the deceased isn't clear at the moment and things like, you know, how to exercise the right to the entitlement or no doubt be fleshed out in regulations as time goes on. But some changes there that I So, some of the clients that we work with already allow some of those rights in a more enhanced way than they already existed. That might not be seen as a big change for many businesses. 

 

Amy: Yeah, I think you're right there, Charlie. It kind of reflects the direction of travel that we're seeing at the moment, aren't we, in terms of kind of support for employees and all that kind of stuff as well, certainly. I don't think that's going to be one of the biggest changes out of all of the bills. 

 

So, The final takeaway that Charlie and I had from the bill is actually what's not in the bill. It's not an element of it, it's what wasn't there. And I think we've touched on a couple of these already in terms of the kind of fire and rehire and zero hours, we expected there to be more in relation to that than they actually ended up being as well. But also in relation to that, and alongside the bill, there was a next steps document which had been published and outlined, amongst other things, how the government was going to deal with the promises that it made in its manifesto that have not been covered off in the bill.

 

 So just to pick out a couple of those things that weren't in there and how they're going to be dealt with. And the first one is this right to switch off, the right to disconnect, which is another one that's hit the press. And obviously, I think it's the French, isn't it, Charlie, that they have this right to disconnect as well currently so kind of following on from what they had introduced and what this means essentially is that employees are prevented from being contacted out of hours and they're talking about introducing that still but by way of a statutory code of practice, so slightly different in terms of how that will be introduced. And then the much anticipated and very important element that relates to the Equality, Race and Disability bill. And what that is, is that we'll make it mandatory for large employees to report on their ethnicity and disability pay gaps, much in the same way as they already have to report on their gender pay gaps, which I think is a welcome addition in there as well. And they're also starting a consultation, they're committed to starting a consultation on a move towards the single status of worker and talking about transitioning towards a simpler two -part framework for employment status. 

 

This has been in discussion for years and years now because employment status is super complicated, overly complicated. The legislation isn't fit for purpose. It's confusing for everybody involved in it and kind of links with all the zero hours stuff and all these other bits as well. I do wonder whether that was kind of put into the too hard box. They were rushing to get through the parts of the bill, they were rushing to get through all of that. And potentially that was put into a bit of a too hard box, I'm not sure, really. Certainly something that requires further consideration, along with reviewing the TUPE legislation as well, which has been in discussion really since Brexit, so that's quite an important element that needs some exploration and there will be a consultation on those. 

 

Charlie: Gosh, so that's our 10, isn't it, isn't it Amy? We could have picked another 10 if we'd wanted to talk about because there's so much in the bill. It was being trailed as the biggest reform to employment rights in a generation and I think it's fair to say it probably meets that brief, doesn't it? 

 

There's so much in there that's being proposed as new ways of interpreting a lot of the existing and new rights. So one of the things that I think you and I have both said, haven't we, is that the likelihood is this is going to place an increased strain on the Employment Tribunal Service and on ACAS, and it's unclear how an already stretched service is going to be able to cope with

what's likely to be an increase in demand, isn't it? 

 

Amy: Yeah, absolutely, Charlie. I mean, just to put it into context, I has a hearing listed in one of the London tribunals who are particularly overwhelmed at the moment. It was listed last week and that was listed for March 2027. It's a 15 -day hearing, so it's a long hearing, but the dismissal took place in 2021. So, it's just a huge amount of time and it's in no one's interest in those circumstances, not the employee, not the employer. Nobody involved in that process for things to take so long to get to a conclusion. So, we've already got a hugely overwhelmed tribunal system, so it'd be interesting to see what funding is proposed to the system to support them in dealing with the undoubtedly significant load that they will be having to deal with as part of that.

 

Whether the single enforcement body will have some kind of involvement in that for certain types of enforcement of rights they might be taken away from the tribunal and put into that, we don't know. Again, over to consultation, it'd be interesting to see what happens with that. But certainly, there's additional work to be done on the periphery to ensure that this bill, if it's going to be the biggest shake -up, then it needs to have a system that reflects that as well. So the enforcement piece is really important and making sure that's fit for purpose. 

 

Charlie: Yeah, no, that's a definite case of watch this space. And I think there's many people that might be a bit worried about the extent to which the system can cope. Anyway, let's wrap up because we've covered a lot here and I think our only reminders and maybe main takeaways are we don't know when these changes are going to take place. We're expecting them to be in 2026. So, what that means is employers, businesses, employees have got time to adjust to what's coming down the path and there's going to be a lot of consultations we think next year into 2025. That will put a lot of flesh on the bone. 

 

That will pick out a lot of the points that we've been covering in some of the topics we've talked about today. So I think we'd encourage all of our clients and contacts to keep an eye on the developments. We at TLT will certainly be updating through our regular updates and through these podcasts on any of the changes that we see starting to take shape in due course. If you don't, subscribe to our updates. There's a note notes on this podcast as to how you can do so if you wish to. But other than that, thanks for listening. Amy and I have enjoyed chatting through all of these 10 topics today and we'll look forward to hopefully have you as a listener on our next series of these podcasts. 

 

Amy: Yeah, thanks very much. See you at the next one.

 

The information in this podcast is for general guidance only and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice at the time of recording. We recommend you seek specific advice for specific cases. Please visit our website for our full terms and conditions.