Top 5 recent workplace developments – April 2025

Here is our selection of key recent employment law developments for employers, HR professionals and in-house lawyers.

April changes: New employment rights and rates increases in effect
Employment Reforms: Update
Unfair dismissal: Misconduct
Discrimination: Racial harassment
Whistleblowing: Job applicants
 

1.  April changes: New employment rights and rates increases in effect

The new rights to neonatal leave and pay are now in force. The new rights give parents of babies born on or after 6 April 2025 up to 12 weeks’ leave and pay when their baby needs specialist neonatal care for at least seven continuous days within the first 28 days of birth. While neonatal leave will be a day one right, parents will need 26 weeks’ continuous service to qualify for neonatal care pay. This right will be in addition to existing family leave entitlements that parents may have.

There is newly published government guidance and Acas guidance  on the new rights. For more information, you can read our detailed update.

Other key April employment law changes include:

• Increases to Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs)
• New statutory minimum wage rates (NMW)
• Increases to the statutory rates for statutory sick pay and family-related leave
• Increases to the maximum compensation for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay
• Increases to the bands for injury to feelings awards that Tribunals can make in discrimination cases. The new rates are:
  • For less serious cases, a lower band of £1,200 to £12,100
  • For cases that do not merit an award in the upper band, a middle band of £12,100 to £36,400
  • For the most serious cases, an upper band of £36,400 to £60,700 - with the most exceptional cases capable of exceeding £60,700.

With the exception of the new rates for NMW which came into effect from 1 April 2025, these changes all came into effect on 6 April 2025. For more details of the new rates, please read our previous update.

Practical point:

The changes to Employer NICs will be particularly significant for employers, as well as the substantial increase in NMW rates.

Employers should update their family friendly policies to include provision for the new right to paid neonatal care leave. If you would like assistance with a neonatal care leave policy, please get in touch.

 

2.   Employment Reforms: Update

The Employment Rights Bill has now passed its second reading in the House of Lords.

On 27 March 2025, after a lengthy debate, the Employment Rights Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords and has now been sent to a Committee of the Whole House which will scrutinise the Bill in detail from 29 April 2025.

The Department for Business and Trade has published some new factsheets which set out what each policy or framework within the Bill aims to do and how it will work.

The government has published a call for evidence on equality law, which is open until 30 June 2025. It is wide-ranging, seeking evidence and views on a number of issues, including:

• The prevalence of race and disability pay discrimination
• Making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people
• Improving pay transparency
• Strengthening protections against combined discrimination
• Reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
• Commencing the socio-economic duty

The government has also announced that it plans to extend the requirement for businesses to carry out right to work checks to ‘anyone working in their name’. This is expected to include gig economy and zero-hours workers. Business could face a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per worker if they fail to carry out the required right to work checks.

Practical point:

Separately, the government has published a Green Paper, Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working. It states that, to increase the employment rate of disabled people and those with health conditions, flexible working practices, inclusive recruitment and efforts to implement reasonable adjustments will all need to improve. Significantly, it notes that:

• Only 23% of employers report that they provide workplace adjustments to support disabled staff and staff with long-term health conditions
• The Access to Work scheme currently only supports approximately 1% of working disabled people.

 

3.   Unfair dismissal: Misconduct

Court of Appeal decision provides a reminder of key principles of fair dismissals for misconduct.

Mr Hewston was employed as a school inspector by Ofsted. He had 12 years’ service and a clean disciplinary record. During a school inspection visit, Mr Hewston brushed rainwater off the head and touched the shoulder of a pupil who had come in from a PE lesson in the rain. This made the pupil feel uncomfortable.

The school reported the incident to Ofsted and the local authority for safeguarding. No safeguarding concerns were found by the local authority. During a disciplinary process that followed, Mr Hewston’s position was that his actions were a gesture of care for the child and the incident had been blown out of proportion. He did not accept that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and thought the school had been looking for a reason to pick on an inspector.

Ofsted dismissed Mr Hewston for misconduct and loss of trust and confidence with immediate effect, even though there was not a ‘no touch’ policy and Mr Hewston had no prior guidance or training on acceptable physical contact. Mr Hewston claimed unfair and wrongful dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Hewston’s dismissal had been fair, concluding that Ofsted’s investigation was reasonable and Mr Hewston’s conduct undermined trust and confidence.

Mr Hewston appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT concluded that Mr Hewston had been unfairly dismissed as it would not have been obvious to Mr Hewston that he could expect to be dismissed for touching the pupil in the way he did, and the lack of a ‘no touch’ policy or training on physical contact meant his dismissal was unreasonable.

Ofsted appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and agreed with the EAT’s conclusion. It emphasised that Mr Hewston’s actions were not of a kind that he should reasonably have anticipated as warranting dismissal.

Practical point

The case is a reminder for employers to ensure a fair disciplinary procedure is followed and their response is fair and proportionate in cases of alleged misconduct. This is especially so where the conduct concerned does not raise safeguarding issues or breach the employer’s written policies.

This case offers a reminder of the need for clarity in disciplinary policies around what can amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. Although employers are not required to have an exhaustive list of what will about to misconduct, an Employment Tribunal will consider whether an employee could reasonably have been expected to understand that their behaviour would amount to gross misconduct.

This case also demonstrates the importance for employers that work with children or vulnerable adults to have clear written policies and training for employees on the standards expected of any interactions that they may have with those individuals.

Finally, the case is a reminder of the need to avoid relying on an employee’s lack of remorse as a reason for dismissal or justifying a more serious disciplinary sanction without evidence of there being a risk of future misconduct. In this case, the Court noted that the risk of future inappropriate conduct by Mr Hewston was remote, especially given he had expressed willingness to undergo training.

Hewston v Ofsted

 

4.   Discrimination: Racial harassment

The EAT has ruled that an employer was not liable for racial harassment because it was not committed “in the course of employment”.

Mr Campbell was an employee of the Hospital Trust and a Branch Secretary of UNISON. A colleague, Mr Hammond, had sought to terminate his UNISON membership but his subscriptions were still being deducted. During a break from work, he went to Mr Campbell's office to ask for a refund. When Mr Campbell refused, Mr Hammond became frustrated and made a racist comment.

Mr Campbell subsequently brought a racial harassment claim. Employers will be liable for harassment committed by their employees “in the course of employment” – unless the employer can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

The EAT concluded that, when considering whether Mr Hammond was acting "in the course of employment", the tribunal had correctly taken the whole context into account. Although there were several connections between the incident and Mr Hammond's employment, it found that his membership of UNISON was a personal choice and the conversation related to a personal dispute with UNISON and the comment was not made in the course of employment.

The EAT also agreed with the tribunal’s finding that the Trust had taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

Practical point

Whether or not an employer is found to have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment will vary according to the particular circumstances. In this case, the steps taken by the employer included:

• Holding an induction session (which Mr Hammond attended) where the issue of acceptable workplace behaviour and the employer’s values, referred to as “PROUD values” - “affording dignity, trust and respect to everyone” - were emphasised
• Displaying the PROUD values on posters around the workplace
• Including in annual appraisals whether employees were acting in accordance with PROUD values
• Less than two weeks before the incident occurred, mandatory DEI training was provided (which Mr Hammond attended) which referred to promoting “a positive attitude towards equality and diversity by showing respect for others, valuing people's differences and treating people with dignity”.

Campbell v North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Hammond

 

5.   Whistleblowing: Detriment claims

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a job applicant could not bring a whistleblowing detriment claim.

Ms Sullivan applied for positions with the Council and attended interviews, but her applications were unsuccessful. She subsequently alleged that she had been subjected to verbal harassment by the managers who interviewed her and made separate allegations of financial irregularity about a Council employee in relation to a charity. The Council concluded that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The Council did not allow a right of appeal given the extent of the investigation already undertaken and the impact on the staff involved. Ms Sullivan issued a whistleblowing claim, on the basis that the refusal to allow an appeal was a detriment because she had made a protected disclosure.

A tribunal dismissed her claim on the grounds that whistleblowing protections did not extend to her as she was not a worker or an employee. The EAT dismissed her appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that, as an external job applicant, Ms Sullivan was not in an analogous situation to internal job applicants or applicants for jobs with NHS employers (who do have protection against whistleblowing detriment). It noted that the position of someone seeking work is materially different from someone in work. As for those who applied for work in the NHS, the whistleblowing protection is necessary to safeguard patient safety – and this concern does not apply to job applicants in other sectors.

Practical point

Except for NHS job applications, external job applicants do not have whistleblowing protection during the recruitment process.

One of the Employment Rights Bill proposals is that sexual harassment will be added as a new category of wrongdoing for whistleblowing disclosures.

Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council