Employment law never stops and 2025 looks to be no exception. While all eyes are on the Government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill, employers should take note of a number of other developments happening this year. In this briefing, we round up the key pieces of legislation, consultations, calls for evidence, reviews and guidance to look out for, and we also highlight some of the most interesting case law decisions expected this year.
New legislation
- The Employment Rights Bill (the ERB): the ERB is the key piece of employment law expected to come into force this year and will make wide-ranging changes to employment law. Some of the key changes in the ERB include making unfair dismissal a Day 1 employment right, diluting the threshold at which consultation on collective redundancies is met, clamping down on the use of fire and rehire practices, introducing employer’s liability for third-party harassment of workers, requiring large employers to publish equality action plans, making it harder for employers to reject flexible working requests, expanding family leave rights and increasing the time limit to bring an Employment Tribunal claim from three to six months. You can read our full analysis of the ERB here and catch up with our recent webinar on what the ERB means for employers here. The Bill is currently on its passage through Parliament and is expected to pass into law this year, however, secondary legislation will still be required to bring many of the changes into force.
- Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: this Bill will introduce ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more staff, which will be along similar lines to the existing gender pay gap reporting regime. The Bill will also introduce a right for workers to bring equal pay claims on the basis of race or disability, rather than just sex as is currently the case. It will also strengthen the law on equal pay more generally by permitting comparisons with outsourced workers and creating a new regulatory and enforcement unit for equal pay law. A draft Bill is expected to be published in this Parliamentary session for pre-legislative scrutiny and a public consultation on the proposals will begin in due course.
- Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023: this Act passed into law in 2023 (under the Conservative Government), with the intention that it would come into force in April 2025. The Labour Government has since confirmed that it will come into force on 6 April 2025. The Act will provide employees with a Day 1 right to take leave where they are the parent of a baby, aged up to 28 days’ old, who needs to spend at least a week in neonatal care. Employees will be able to take up to 12 weeks’ leave and this will be on top of any other leave they may be entitled to, such as maternity or paternity leave or annual leave. Employees who have at least 26 weeks’ continuous service (and meet a minimum earnings threshold) will also be entitled to receive statutory neonatal pay. Employees will have a right to return to work and will be protected from detriment and dismissal as a result of taking, or seeking to take, the leave. The precise scope and mechanics of the new rights will be set out in seven new sets of regulations, which are yet to be published.
- Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024: this Act passed into law in 2024 (under the Conservative Government), with the intention that it would come into force in April 2025 The Labour Government has confirmed that it intends to pass the regulations needed to bring the Act into force. The Act will remove the usual 26-week minimum service requirement for fathers and partners to take paternity leave where the mother of a child dies shortly after the child’s birth (or the adoptive parent or intended parent in a surrogacy arrangement dies). This would make paternity leave a Day 1 employment right in these circumstances (note that under the ERB the plan is to make paternity leave a Day 1 right for all). Separately, regulations may extend the amount of paternity leave available in such circumstances, potentially up to 52 weeks. It is not yet clear how much of this leave would be paid – will it be just the two weeks’ statutory paternity pay as now, or will it mirror statutory maternity and adoption pay and be available for up to 39 weeks? Further, regulations may provide that if the child also dies (or is returned after adoption), the father or partner will be entitled to stay on paternity leave for a period of time. Regulations may also provide enhanced redundancy protection to bereaved employees when they return from paternity leave and allow them to work on “keeping-in-touch” days during their paternity leave. The regulations are yet to be published and it is not known whether the rights will come into force in April 2025, or later in the year.
- Private Members’ Bills 2024-25: several employment-related Private Members’ Bills sponsored by different MPs are currently on their passage through Parliament. Although not impossible, Private Members’ Bills are less likely to pass into law. The Bills of most interest are:
- the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill: this Bill would introduce a legal definition of “bullying” and allow employees to bring bullying claims in the Employment Tribunal. It would also introduce a “Respect at Work Code” which would set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments and give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and take enforcement action. The Bill has its next reading on 20 June 2025.
- the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill: this Bill would introduce a right for employees who are victims of domestic abuse to take up to 10 days’ paid “safe leave” from work. The Bill has its next reading on 20 June 2025.
- the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill: this Bill would amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to require employers to take proactive steps to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace, including providing relevant training to staff. The Bill would also require the Health and Safety Executive to publish a framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and publish guidance for employers. The Bill has its next reading on 7 March 2025.
- the Office of the Whistleblower Bill: this Bill would establish an independent “Office of the Whistleblower” to protect whistleblowers. It would set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, provide disclosure and advice services, direct whistleblowing investigations and order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers. The Bill has its next reading on 25 April 2025.
- the Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill: this Bill would limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees. The Bill has its next reading on 13 June 2025.
- the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill: this Bill would introduce a legal definition of “bullying” and allow employees to bring bullying claims in the Employment Tribunal. It would also introduce a “Respect at Work Code” which would set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments and give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and take enforcement action. The Bill has its next reading on 20 June 2025.
Government consultations, calls for evidence, reviews and guidance
- Right to disconnect: the Government has committed to introduce a new statutory Code of Practice which will provide statutory guidance on the ability for workers to disconnect outside normal working hours. However, it does not appear that a statutory right to disconnect will be introduced. We can expect a public consultation on the draft Code before it comes into force.
- Regulating employee surveillance: a consultation on workplace surveillance technologies has been promised.
- Introducing a single worker status: a consultation on introducing a single worker status has been promised. This consultation will also look at ways to improve protections for the self-employed.
- Improving TUPE rights and protections: a call for evidence will be launched to examine a “wide variety of issues”.
- Banning unpaid internships: a call for evidence is expected imminently.
- Parental leave framework: a review of all parental leave rights will be undertaken. In particular, we can expect to see the shared parental leave regime come under scrutiny given the low uptake rates. Ahead of that review, the cross party Women and Equalities Select Committee has recently opened a Call for Evidence seeking views on shared parental leave system. This closes on 7 February 2025.
- Carer’s leave: a review of the carer’s leave regime will be undertaken. In particular, consideration will be given to introducing a right to paid leave.
- Health and safety law and guidance: a review of the framework will be conducted “in due course”. Among other things, the review will consider neurodiversity, extreme temperatures and Long Covid.
- Menopause guidance: one of the ERB’s provisions is to require employers with 250 or more employees to publish equality actions plans covering, amongst other things, the steps being taken to support those going through the menopause. In addition, the Government has said it will publish non-binding guidance for all employers on menopause in the workplace. It is not yet known when this will be published. We expect that the new guidance will be along similar lines to that already published by Acas and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, both of which summarise the legal position briefly, explain how managers should approach conversations about menopause and address possible adjustments that employers can make to support affected staff.
Key cases
Belief and freedom of expression
- Higgs v Farmor’s School: an employee of a school was dismissed after she made Facebook posts objecting to the Government’s consultation on relationship and sex education in primary schools. She claimed she had been discriminated against because of her religion or belief. An Employment Tribunal held that the dismissal not discriminatory. She was dismissed because of the nature of her Facebook posts which may have created the impression that she was homophobic and transphobic. On appeal, the EAT held that the Facebook posts were, in fact, a manifestation of her beliefs, meaning that the Tribunal should have probed the reason for the dismissal further. Was it because of, or related to, her protected beliefs (which would be unlawful)? Or was it because of the manifestation of her beliefs was objectionable (which could potentially be lawful). If the latter, the Tribunal would then need to assess whether dismissal was a proportionate response to any such objectionable behaviour. The EAT went on to set down some guidelines for conducting such an assessment and remitted the case to the Tribunal. However, this decision was appealed, and the Court of Appeal’s decision is awaited. This decision is important as it will set a precedent in future cases concerning the manifestation of protected beliefs at work and when sanctions are lawful.
- Ngole v Touchstone Leeds: an employer who provided services to the LGBTQ community withdrew a job offer from a candidate after it was discovered that he had posted negative views about homosexuality on Facebook. After withdrawing the offer, the employer invited him for a second interview to explain his position and offer reassurances, however, they did not go on to reinstate the job offer. The Employment Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the job offer amounted to direct discrimination as it was not a proportionate response. Instead, the employer should have invited him to discuss the matter first and, if not reassured, it could then have withdrawn the job offer lawfully. The employer appealed to the EAT and its decision is awaited. This is another important decision which will consider the proportionality of an employer’s response to what it considers to be an objectionable manifestation of a protected belief.
- Miller v University of Bristol: a Professor at a University who held anti-Zionist beliefs was summarily dismissed after complaints were made that he had made anti-Semitic comments in various contexts, including to his students. An Employment Tribunal held the anti-Zionist belief in question qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The University’s own investigation had concluded that his statements were not anti-Semitic, had not incited violence, and had not posed any threat to any person’s health or safety. Accordingly, the Tribunal went on to decide that the dismissal was a disproportionate response to the manifestation of his beliefs and a sanction short of dismissal (such as a warning) would have been the appropriate response. The dismissal was held to be directly discriminatory and unfair. The University has appealed to the EAT and the hearing is due to take place later this year.
Whistleblowing protection
- Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council: an external job applicant argued that she was entitled to bring a whistleblowing detriment claim against a prospective employer. TheEAT held that she did not qualify as a “worker” for whistleblowing law purposes, nor should the law be interpreted widely so as to give job applicants protection (as may be done, exceptionally, for other groups such as judicial office holders and, potentially, charity trustees). The job applicant appealed, and the Court of Appeal decision is awaited. This is an important decision in determining who has whistleblowing protection.
- Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice: an employee brought a whistleblowing claim against the employer, arguing that it was vicariously liable for a detriment (namely, his dismissal) which had been meted out by a co-worker (namely, the owner of the business). The EAT held he could not do so. He could bring a detriment of dismissal claim against the co-worker and he could bring an unfair dismissal claim against the employer. However, if the employer was vicariously liable for the detriment of dismissal, this would effectively duplicate the unfair dismissal claim and was not permitted under the legislation. In doing so, the EAT took a narrow interpretation of the leading case on this issue – Timis and Sage v Osipov – holding that it was only authority for the point that a detriment of dismissal claim could be brought against a co-worker and not on the question of claims based on vicarious liability. Interestingly, a few months later, in Treadwell v Barton Turns Developments Ltd, the EAT reached the opposite view. Appeals have been filed in both cases and the Court of Appeal is due to hear the combined appeal later this year. This will be an important decision is drawing the boundaries of an employer’s liability where a whistleblower is dismissed.
BDBF is a leading employment law firm based at Bank in the City of London. If you would like to discuss any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact Amanda Steadman (AmandaSteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.