On 1 August 2025, new legislation (the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023) was passed, which prohibits higher education providers in England from entering into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with staff, members, students or visiting speakers in relation to issues of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, complaints of sexual abuse or other bullying and harassment.

In the context of settling Tribunal claims between employers and employees in the higher education sector, this means that a settlement agreement cannot include a clause which would prevent a party from disclosing their experience with the types of misconduct set out above. This signals a shift towards more transparency and accountability in university governance.

The Rationale Behind the Change

The government’s decision to prohibit higher education providers from entering into NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct and harassment is rooted in a clear need to protect students and staff from being silenced.

The Government’s 2023 Impact Assessment (“the IA”) for the new legislation outlines in detail the rationale behind the change. Within this document, a BBC freedom of information request was referenced, and this found that nearly a third of universities (out of the 134 that provided information) had used NDAs for student grievances since 2016. 300 NDAs were used by those universities, totalling £1.3m paid out in individual settlements.

Further, the IA noted that NDAs have historically shielded perpetrators, allowing them to move to new positions or institutions without their misconduct being formally recorded or disclosed.

Students Three Times More Likely to Experience Sexual Assault

Individuals who have engaged in harassment or bullying may find it harder to secure roles at other institutions, reducing the risk of the same behaviour recurring elsewhere, protecting staff and students.

The IA also referenced research from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2021 which found that between March 2018 and March 2020, students in England and Wales were over three times more likely than the general population to have experienced sexual assault. These statistics are indicative of the scale of the problem and the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability within universities.

The new legislation establishes a new obligation for registered higher education providers to actively uphold and encourage lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom within their institutions. In addition, individuals who have engaged in harassment or bullying may find it harder to secure roles at other institutions, reducing the risk of the same behaviour recurring elsewhere, protecting staff and students.

The Effect on HR and Governance

Universities are now increasingly expected to demonstrate ethical leadership and accountability, and not just academic excellence.

The change in legislation could change institutional behaviour, forcing higher education institutions to confront systemic issues head-on, rather than relying on NDAs as a “quick fix”. Senior management and governing bodies will likely now need to adopt a more proactive stance on safeguarding and workplace culture following this development.

The change will also affect HR professionals as settlement agreements and NDA precedents will need to be audited. Moreover, internal policies will also likely need to be updated to ensure compliance. It would also be sensible for HR professionals, employment law solicitors, legal professionals, and those in management positions to be trained on these developments and their obligations moving forward.

An unavoidable consequence of these changes is that, initially, there may be some reputational risk to these organisations as more cases become public. Further, there may be additional requirements for formal reporting and a possible pressure to publish statistics on complaints. However, ultimately the changes should strengthen long-term governance and rebuild trust among students, staff and the public.

Ethical and leadership considerations

Beyond ensuring compliance with the legislation, the ban on NDAs will put pressure on university leaders to foster a culture of accountability and integrity. These values would need to be embedded in the institutions’ values and decision-making. It should not be merely about avoiding legal risk but about demonstrating ethical leadership, which prioritises the welfare and free speech of its students and staff.

This change will also push leaders, who are able to make commercial decisions, to effectively allocate resources to HR, legal and safeguarding functions whilst also maintaining public confidence, student satisfaction and staff morale.

Universities that are able to navigate this landscape well will be able to strengthen their brand, attract talent and demonstrate the ethical and responsible governance which investors and regulators will now expect.

The Wider Movement Against NDAs

NDAs are not only being challenged in higher education, but it’s use is also being addressed by the government in different sectors. Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 which came into force on 1 October 2025, voids any provision in an agreement preventing disclosures by victims of criminal conduct in England and Wales.

The changes represent a broader shift in societal attitudes towards harassment, power dynamics and accountability from employers and institutions generally.

Further, an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill regarding NDAs has been proposed. The provision would prevent adding clauses in any agreement, between an employer and employee, that stop the employee from disclosing incidents of harassment and discrimination unless contained in an “excepted agreement”. However, the definition of “excepted agreement” is still currently unclear.

In practice, it is possible that employers will feel less incentivised to settle discrimination and harassment claims. This could mean employees are more likely to have to take a case through to a full Employment Tribunal, potentially increasing legal costs, administrative burden, and public scrutiny for the institution.

These changes represent a broader shift in societal attitudes towards harassment, power dynamics and accountability from employers and institutions generally.

Next steps

The NDA ban represents more than just a legislative change; it signals a cultural shift for English higher education. Universities are being prompted to reconsider how they manage allegations of misconduct and how they can prevent these issues from occurring in the first place.

Accountability and ethical leadership will now need to be at the forefront of university governance, and systems will need to be changed to anticipate and manage risk in new ways to ensure that individuals are being actively protected. Whilst initial implementation may be complex, institutions that embrace transparency and robust governance are likely to strengthen trust, credibility, and resilience in the long term.

About the Author

Chloe Holmes is an Associate in the Employment Law team at Redmans Solicitors. She supports clients on a wide range of employment matters—both contentious and non-contentious—including assessing claims, drafting legal documents, and advising on workplace disputes.

The post Ban Introduced on English Higher Education Providers Entering into NDAs About Sexual Misconduct, Bullying and Harassment appeared first on The European Business Review.

Employment law, like so many aspects of 21st-century life, is subject to constant evolution. It’s challenging for employers, who must be aware of their legal responsibilities at all times, but also for employees, who need to know exactly where they stand. Enter Tessa Harris and her team at Redmans.

You have built an impressive career in employment law, now serving as Employment Law Director at Redmans. What inspired you to specialise in this field?

Having a family who are largely in the medical profession, I have always been interested in medicine and healthcare (even questioning whether, at one point, I chose the right profession). So, I initially wanted to specialise in clinical negligence.

However, during my Legal Practice course, which I carried out at the University of the West of England in Bristol, clinical negligence was not a topic to specialise in, so one of my optional modules was employment law. Since it felt easier than my other modules, I enjoyed it the most out of all.

It is also fast-paced and ever-changing, which means I have to be on my toes. I benefited from knowing the law and understanding my rights as an employee, as did my friends and family when ad hoc advice was needed.

Following the end of my university life, as luck would have it, a paralegal opportunity arose in the Employment team at Lyons Davidson solicitors. And although I grabbed the opportunity merely because it was one foot in the door in an incredibly competitive industry, I quickly discovered how much my enjoyment of employment law actually increased in practice.

I found employment law to be highly relatable, as most of the population is employed or in some form of work capacity. It is also fast-paced and ever-changing, which means I have to be on my toes. I benefited from knowing the law and understanding my rights as an employee, as did my friends and family when ad hoc advice was needed.

I love that I can help so many people, and every person’s case is different. I couldn’t imagine being in a position where some of my clients find themselves having been unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. But I can, however, as an employee, sympathise with them. I am therefore able to show a human / relatable side of being a lawyer, which can be lost in other legal areas.

How have your academic and professional experiences, including your master’s in Clinical Negligence, shaped your approach to employment law and client advocacy?

I say this to many aspiring lawyers that a degree, the Legal Practice course, and a training contract are all useful to gain the basics of the theoretical side of law. However, I only had a firm grasp of what I was doing once I had a caseload myself, and I was applying the theoretical side of law to actual real-life situations.

Nothing can prepare you for dealing with those initial client calls, drafting and submitting your first claim form, or representing your client, during the first preliminary hearing.

As Employment Law Director, you balance client work with mentoring and guiding your legal team. What principles define your leadership style in such a people-focused area of law?

Being a specialist in employment law, I know first hand how poor management can result in significant repercussions. So, I am always conscious of ensuring that I strike a fine balance between acting in the best interests of the firm as a business, as well as my team.

The most important principle is that I will always listen and take opinions and points on board. If I can find a solution, fantastic; if I can’t, I will suggest alternatives.

Because of the nature of my role and my experience, I have developed empathy and look to understand the “why” before reaching a conclusion. While I honestly communicate the potential issues that may occur, I also look to work with my team to reach a conclusion and a way forward.

Moreover, part of managing a team is being able to make difficult decisions. So, having an open and transparent dialogue and offering support from the start allows those difficult decisions to be communicated with discussion and suggested options, where equal respect is offered both ways.

I am very fortunate to work with an incredible team, where we have developed a fantastic working relationship. As a collective, we work on solutions and ways forward and always support one another.

Redmans is one of the few UK firms that focus solely on employment law and has earned recognition for its success in resolving cases efficiently. What makes Redmans’ approach distinctive, and how does this shape your work with clients and colleagues?

The lawyers we hire are key to maintaining our high levels of success at Redmans solicitors. We pride ourselves on being approachable and try to offer solutions where clients may feel there are none.

In our initial calls, we will always offer advice and suggest best ways forward for clients. We believe that the human approach is key, as empathy and understanding are so important.

While more experience will assist with having these skills, we also ensure that our new recruits are the right fit for not only working as a team but, equally, for offering the same level of approachability and professionalism that our clients come to expect.

The discussion around employee empowerment and day-one rights has become increasingly important. How do you think these developments are influencing workplace culture and employer responsibilities?

It’s significantly reshaping workplace culture and redefining employer responsibilities. As employees increasingly expect greater autonomy, fair treatment, and a voice in decision making, organisations are being challenged to create more inclusive, transparent, and supportive environments, which in my view is a positive way forward.

Employers are expected to offer more by way of training, communication, and mental health support to meet the expectations of this new workplace culture.

Workplace culture is shifting from traditional, top-down management to more collaborative and flexible styles. This then allows employees the space to be more engaged, motivated, and innovative, which can lead to higher productivity. However, this also means that employers are expected to offer more by way of training, communication, and mental health support to meet the expectations of this new workplace culture.

Employers are now, more than ever, accountable for creating safe and respectful workspaces. It requires a review of pay equality, work-life balance, diversity and inclusion, and harassment prevention. A higher onus is on employers to ensure that employees are safe, and if day-one rights come in (which seems likely), the risk to employers is far more significant. Thus, policies and procedures will need to be reviewed carefully, legal advice sought and prepared in readiness for this change.

Mental health and well-being have become top priorities in many workplaces. How do you see employment law supporting this shift toward healthier and more inclusive working environments?

The law hasn’t changed much since the implementation of the Equality Act 2010, which protects those who have a disability from discrimination. Although not everyone who struggles with mental health issues will be considered disabled, that does not necessarily mean that employees who do struggle with mental health have nowhere to turn to.

Health and safety regulations require employers to provide a safe physical and mental working environment, reducing risks of injury and stress. So, businesses are now swiftly adapting their ways of working to accommodate mental health and provide support systems in place.

Implementation of stress risk assessments at work and providing hybrid working for a positive work-life balance are two areas which employers seem to adopt at present. Additionally, employment law covers areas such as equal pay, protection against unfair dismissal, flexible working rights, and parental leave, all of which contribute to an employee’s well-being and work-life balance.

From your experience handling cases such as disability discrimination and absence management, what key trends or challenges are shaping employment law today?

Since COVID, employers have adopted hybrid working, which has improved work-life balance. However, now that some time has passed, some have reduced that flexibility or removed it completely. This has resulted in many employees, who have relied upon such flexibility to manage their mental health and personal circumstances, feeling disgruntled and stressed.

So, the vast majority of discrimination claims that I now receive are with a greater focus on mental health as a disability.

In the past, physical impairments were traditionally the conditions relied upon for disability discrimination claims. However, with the growing recognition of mental health conditions, such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD, employers are increasingly required to consider adjustments for mental-health-related absences or performance issues, even before determining whether the condition is in fact a disability or not. This helps to ensure that they have taken steps to protect themselves from the possibility of litigation.

There is also more of an emphasis on reasonable adjustments being implemented at work. A rising expectation for employers is that they be proactive in ensuring that adjustments have been discussed and implemented.

Moreover, employers are expected to consider each individual pattern of absence per employee, as a generalised absence-management policy tends to be outdated and rigid in structure. Adapting a more flexible way of managing absence would show that care and attention have been given to the individual’s needs.

Failure to do the above can lead to grievances being raised and, again, litigation.

Looking ahead, how do you see employment law evolving to meet the changing expectations of employees and employers in the future world of work?

As employee awareness grows and their rights increase, so will litigation matters. With day-one rights likely to be implemented as well, employment law practitioners are likely to see an influx of cases, which will have a knock-on effect on the capacity of Acas and the Employment Tribunal.

I foresee an increase in not only unfair dismissal claims but, given how the culture is shifting, in disability discrimination claims, specifically failure to make reasonable adjustments, as well as discriminatory dismissals by way of sickness absence.

Employers will need to have a sound business justification for removing or reducing flexibility around hybrid working. While, at present, Employment Tribunals tend to avoid interfering with how a company wants to run its business, if there is no sound commercial reason for the justification, this could result in Tribunals finding that such action is unlawful. Again, employers should be considering, therefore, why they need to change, what the pros and cons are, and what alternatives can be offered to assist those most in need.

Fairness and inclusion are key. A reasonable employer will now be expected to include its employees in decision-making processes, consider individual needs based on any underlying medical condition, and adopt a supportive and understanding environment. If an employer does not, there is likely to be a significant litigation risk.

Executive Profile

Tessa Harris is the Employment Law Director at Redmans solicitors and is at the forefront of managing diverse cases. Serving as a deputy to the firm’s Partner, she brings her wealth of experience to supervising and guiding the legal team.

She focuses on litigation, particularly in areas like disability discrimination and absence management.

The post Evolutionary Forces at Work: Keeping Abreast of Employment Law appeared first on The European Business Review.

During the most recent general election, the Labour Party pledged to abolish the two-year qualifying period required for employees to bring an unfair dismissal claim, a policy that has been in place since April 2012.

The introduction of the two-year rule was intended to reduce the number of employment tribunal claims, and it largely succeeded in doing so. However, it has long been criticised for leaving employees vulnerable during the first two years of employment, with some employers allegedly using the qualifying period to dismiss staff without recourse.

Proposed Change by Labour

In an attempt to further improve worker protection, Labour proposed introducing unfair dismissal protection from “day one” of employment. This marked a significant shift in policy.

When unfair dismissal rights were first introduced in 1971, employees required only six months’ service to qualify. Over time, this threshold increased, and the suggestion of removing it altogether came as a surprise to many employment law professionals.

However, with Tribunal claims already rising sharply, the system continues to strain under a backlog that predates the proposed reforms. The Employment Rights Bill, by granting unfair dismissal rights from day one, is expected to further amplify claim volumes and wait times.

Labour Responds to Employer Concerns

The “day-one” rights raised concerns among employers, particularly regarding the ability to manage underperforming new hires without legal risk. In response, Labour indicated that a clear and fair system of probationary periods would be mapped out and would be sufficient to address these concerns, allowing employers to assess suitability during the initial months of employment.

However, the business community, especially small businesses, had not been reassured. On 6 January 2025, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) published the results of a member survey indicating that the proposed removal of the qualifying period was a top concern.

Many smaller employers warned that the change could lead them to reduce headcount, delay or cancel growth plans, and adopt a more risk-averse approach to recruitment, particularly when considering candidates with less stable work histories. This would understandably have a knock-on effect on the economy.

The draft Employment Rights Bill, published shortly after Labour came into power, included the proposed “day one” unfair dismissal protection, signalling the government’s intention to follow through. However, when the Bill reached the House of Lords in July 2025, it faced resistance.

House of Lords Amendment

Lord Sharpe of Epsom proposed an amendment to replace the removal of the qualifying period with a reduced threshold of six months’ service. In his remarks to the House, he stated:

“The Government’s intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness, dignity and security at work are essential pillars of a just society. However, the approach taken in this Bill, particularly the changes to unfair dismissal rights and the introduction of a statutory probationary period, is confused and counterproductive.”

The House of Lords supported this amendment, and the bill has now returned to the House of Commons for reconsideration.

Potential Impact on Employees

Day-one rights would have been ideal for employees; However, a reduced threshold, on paper, does seem better than having to wait two years to bring a claim. Bear in mind, unfair dismissal claims where an employee has been dismissed due to maternity, whistleblowing, etc, will be considered “automatically unfair”. In such situations, employees can bring an unfair dismissal claim from day one in any event.

While having such protection from six months of employment can be considered an improvement from having no protection at all, it may still leave employees feeling vulnerable for the first six months of a new role.

Implications for Employers

For many employers, the amendment by the House of Lords is a welcome compromise. A six-month qualifying period provides a realistic timeframe to assess the suitability and performance of new hires, while still enhancing early stage protections for employees compared to the current two-year threshold.

Businesses should, however, begin reviewing and formalising their probationary policies to ensure they are clear, fair, and consistently applied. If the proposed six-month qualifying period is retained, employers will need robust systems in place to monitor and document employee performance during this initial period.

Importantly, if concerns are not identified and addressed within the six months, the employee will gain full unfair dismissal protection, potentially leaving the employer exposed should performance issues arise thereafter. A lack of timely action could undermine the employer’s ability to defend future claims, even where genuine concerns exist.

In addition, it will be essential to provide training for all managers involved in staff supervision, ensuring they are fully familiar with the organisation’s performance management procedures and the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and dismissal processes. Equipping line managers with the knowledge and tools to identify and address issues early, particularly within the probationary or qualifying period, will be key to mitigating risk and maintaining fair, consistent practices across the business.

While recent amendments mark an important development, the amendments proposed are still being considered, and the bill may undergo further changes. Businesses should continue to prepare for any eventual legal and operational impacts.

About the Author

Alex is a Senior Associate and employment law specialist at Redmans Solicitors. She advises and supports individuals through various employment matters, such as grievances, settlement agreements and tribunal claims.

The post Day-One Rights vs Six-Month Threshold: Where the Employment Rights Bill May Land appeared first on The European Business Review.

Over the last decade, the use of workplace NDAs have come under increasing scrutiny as allegations of the abuse of these types of agreements has come to light. In this article we examine why workplace NDAs are used, how they can be abused, and what potentially can be done to prevent the misuse of these agreements. 

What is a workplace NDA? 

A workplace settlement agreement (also colloquially referred to as a “workplace NDA”) is a contract between, generally, an employer and an employee, where the employee agrees to settle particular claims against the employer in return for the receipt of agreed benefits.  

These settlement agreements normally, although not always, also include clauses which:  

1. Compel the employee to maintain confidentiality about the agreement, and the circumstances giving rise to the agreement, and,  
2. Prevent the employee from making derogatory comments about their employer. 

What are the typical problems with the use of workplace NDAs? 

There are many benefits to the use of workplace NDAs. They allow for the swift, simple and cost-effective settlement of employment disputes, limit the liability of employers, set out clear terms that both parties can rely on, and can take pressure off embattled Employment Tribunals. 

There are, however, equally significant issues with the use of workplace NDAs – first, is the large disparity between the power and resources of employers and employees, leading to potentially unfair outcomes for employees; and second, is that, principally, the confidentiality clauses in workplace NDAs effectively ‘gag’ employees. 

Employees who have signed settlement agreements can often believe that they have an absolute obligation to maintain confidentiality when it comes to the background of their dispute and the terms of their agreement, where this obligation is qualified (section 43j Employment Rights Act 1996 is very clear as to how far the power of a confidentiality clause can extend – further explained below). Equally, sometimes employees understand their obligation, but fear that their powerful and rich former employers might threaten to sue them, or actually sue them, even if the employee lawfully exercises their right to disclose certain information under the terms of the settlement agreement.  

This has led to situations were powerful employers (Weinstein, Odey) are alleged to have prevented employees from disclosing potentially criminal misconduct to the police or breach of regulatory obligations to the relevant regulators 

How are workplace NDAs regulated? 

Settlement agreements have to comply with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: they have to be in writing; they have to confirm the particular claims that are being settled; and the employee has to obtain independent legal advice on the terms and effect of the settlement agreement.   

Section 43j of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements will not be valid to the extent that they seek to prevent employees from making ‘protected disclosures’ (e.g. complaining about a breach of the criminal law to the police or alleging a breach of regulations to a regulatory authority).  

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) has also produced a number of pieces of guidance for solicitors as to how workplace NDAs should and should not be used. 

Mohammed Al Fayed 

Since the death of Mohammed Al Fayed, former owner of Harrods and Fulham Football Club, in 2023, a flood of allegations have emerged, mainly from former employees, that they had been subject to sexual misconduct at work from Al Fayed and his acquaintances.  

It has also been reported that at least some of these complainants signed workplace NDAs, and that the people who signed the NDAs felt compelled to keep their experiences confidential because of fear of legal repercussions if they breached the agreement or because they misunderstood their confidentiality obligations. Al Fayed was, of course, incredibly litigious while he was alive, and the fears of these employees is, at the least, understandable. 

Is there a case for the further regulation of workplace NDAs? 

There are clear public policy advantages to the use of settlement agreements in the workplace (most of these have been outlined above). Hence, the banning of the use of settlement agreements (as has been called for from time to time) would likely be counter-productive as it would result in more disputes being funnelled through a struggling Employment Tribunal system. Moreover, it is likely to be expensive, lead to time-consuming arguments between employers and employees, and increase reputational damage to both parties. 

Rather than banning settlement agreements themselves (as the Government has already rejected), it would probably be sensible to look at the root cause of the concern when using such agreements: the confidentiality clauses.  

There have been calls to ban confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, but that probably does not make realistic practical or commercial sense as a business’ reputation is an important asset to it. – it makes little sense to pay a potentially sizeable sum to settle an employment dispute, only to leave a likely-disgruntled former employee with a free licence to damage the employer’s reputation. 

An alternative remedy could be to further educate employees on the purpose and effect of confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, and what they can and can’t do. Employees, for example, could sign a new declaration in a settlement agreement confirming that they understand the proper effect of the confidentiality clause, and that they have been advised on such (such a declaration would be similar to the certificates of advice that are commonly completed on settlement agreements to confirm that the employee has received appropriate legal advice on the agreement).  

Solicitors could also be asked to confirm within the settlement agreement that they have appropriately advised the employee (their client) on the terms and effect of the confidentiality clause. Ultimately, however, an understanding of the proper use and effect of confidentiality clauses in a settlement agreement will almost always be hostage to how employers try and enforce these clauses – the threat of potential legal action will often be enough to deter stressed and vulnerable employees from exercising their lawful right to, for example, make a complaint to the police that they have been sexually assaulted.  

Greater emphasis therefore can and should be placed on the obligation of solicitors advising their corporate clients on what actions are appropriate, and inappropriate, when it comes to enforcing the terms of workplace NDAs – as with SLAPPs, actual or threatened legal action to suppress the disclosure of information of public interest is not, and cannot be, lawful (or in compliance with the SRA Code of Conduct).

About the Author

The post The Al Fayed Allegations – Is Further Regulation of Workplace NDAs Necessary?  appeared first on The European Business Review.

After a 14-year Conservative rule, the Labour Party experienced a historic win with 412 votes, causing a shift in the political landscape. Given Labour’s manifesto on proposed changes, these results are seen by both businesses and employers as a potentially welcome change.

Prior to the elections, the Labour Party pledged to support businesses by reforming Britain’s economy through various legislative changes; these potential changes were reflected in the King’s Speech on July 17. We explore what UK businesses can expect below.

Upcoming Employment Law Changes Expected by the New Labour Government  

Introduction of Day One Rights  

The protection from being unfairly dismissed is currently offered to employees with two years of service. However, Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make unfair dismissal protection a day-one right, meaning employees will be protected from being unfairly dismissed from day one of their employment. The bill is set to come into effect on 12th October 2024.

It is important to note that Labour has promised to incorporate exceptions relating to probationary periods. So, it is possible that probationary periods can still be a part of an employee’s contract to assess their performance. However, it is still unclear how long the probationary period could be.

In addition to this, Labour also wants to make Parental Leave a day one right and have Statutory Sick Pay be paid from day one of absence.

Strategies to Promote Fair Pay  

As part of Labour’s “New Deal for Working People”, they have promised to deliver a ‘genuine living wage’. The party has acknowledged that the National Minimum Wage has helped many, but it has to now become a wage people can live on.

In that spirit, they plan on eliminating discriminatory age bands on all adult workers and ensuring a genuine living wage is enforced. Additionally, Labour will be establishing a ‘Fair Pay Agreement’ in the adult social care sector. Through this, workers and the unions that represent them can negotiate pay and conditions that are right for them.

They also plan on tackling the gender pay gap by ensuring large firms develop and implement plans to close that gap. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill will ensure that employees from ethnic minorities or with disabilities are not discriminated against.

Plus, with the implementation of this bill, ethnicity and disability pay gap reports may be mandatory to draft and publish for companies with more than 250 employees.

Strengthening Trade Union Recognition and Worker Representation  

Given Labour’s support for trade unions and the unions’ reciprocity, it is no surprise that their proposed changes further strengthen union recognition. Labour promises to empower workers by updating trade union legislation for today’s economy. They want to remove ‘unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity’.

Labour also plans on ensuring trade unions have access to workplaces to meet and represent employees. Hence, new legislation may be introduced that will give trade unions access rights to workplaces. It is worth noting that employers may not need to give express permission, rather unions would just have to give prior notice and comply with any reasonable request by employers.

Ending ‘Fire and Rehire’ and Zero Hour Contracts  

‘Fire and Rehire’ has received a lot of traction over the last few months. Hence, this act of making employees redundant and then re-hiring them on reduced conditions has been on Labour’s radar.

Now, the ‘Fire and Rehire’ code of practice that was developed by the previous government and came into force on 18th July will be reviewed again. Labour plans to ultimately ban the practice of ‘Fire and Rehire’, but that’s not the only thing they want to ban.

The party is also looking at banning ‘exploitative’ zero-hour contracts to ensure all jobs provide a ‘baseline level of security’ and ‘effective remedies against abuse’

Extended Protection for Working Mums  

Labour in its manifesto acknowledges that working people are already being provided with plenty of family-friendly conditions. However, there is still economic inactivity which pushes the need for more family-friendly rights.

Earlier this year, a new redundancy law extended protection to women who have returned from maternity leave by six more months after the leave ends. Labour plans to implement this law on not just redundancies but all times of dismissal. The manifesto does mention having exceptions to this but has not gone into detail.

How Can UK Businesses Prepare for Labour’s Employment Law Changes  

The upcoming changes are likely to affect multiple aspects of a business such as its contracts, recruitment processes and workplace policies. Employers are advised to conduct thorough reviews and audits to make sure they are complying with legislation

• With unfair dismissal potentially becoming a day one right, all employment contracts will have to be reviewed, including zero hour contracts to ensure they are not exploitative.
• Empowering workers is the heart of Labour’s manifesto, and this includes pay gap reporting. Employers are advised to collect data on how employees pay to identify and rectify gaps. If a company does not collect ethnicity or disability related employee data, they may want to look into starting now.
• Changes in the National Minimum Wage will impact employees and employment contracts as Labour plans to remove age bands. Employers are advised to take into account the potential increase in employee pay and plan the next steps accordingly.

Parting Thoughts  

Labour’s changes in employment law are not only going to be a change to businesses but also to the legal system. The number of employment tribunal claims could increase due to the additional number of people being able to claim unfair dismissal.

Moreover, there may be a ‘settling in’ period before both the Employment Tribunal and the lawyers that use it, to properly understand the effect of the new legislation. Delays in the Employment Tribunal system could therefore potentially increase, and satisfaction in the system could be damaged as a result.

On the other hand, forward-thinking businesses can tackle this new legislation, and the rights that arise from such, head on. They can try and properly prepare how they will implement the new rights in the workplace – if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.

About the Author

Chris Hadrill is an experienced employment law solicitor and head of the employment law team at Redmans Solicitors, which has offices in London. 

The post How Will the New Labour Government Employment Law Changes Affect UK Business?  appeared first on The European Business Review.