Employment Update November 2025

Before an employee can bring an Employment Tribunal claim, they must contact ACAS (an independent body) to allow for pre-claim conciliation. ACAS then has a six-week window to broker a deal. The Government has made regulations which will extend the conciliation window from six to twelve weeks with effect from 1 December 2025. The change is being made due to ACAS's stretched resources, as it would give ACAS considerably longer to attempt to conciliate a settlement. However, it would also mean employees have much longer to bring Employment Tribunal claims. The limitation period for bringing a claim is effectively paused during conciliation so that the limitation period is extended by the length of conciliation. From 1 December 2025, the extended conciliation period means that employees will have up to six months to bring a claim in some cases. Under the Employment Rights Bill, the Government plans to increase the basic limitation period for bringing Tribunal claims from three to six months – with the extension of the ACAS conciliation period, employees could effectively have up to nine months to bring a claim.

Employers have a duty to notify the Government when they are proposing 20 or more redundancies at a single site or establishment within a period of 90 days. The notification must be made to the Insolvency Service's Redundancy Payments Service via the HR1 Form. Currently the HR1 Form can be downloaded and completed as a Word document, and then submitted by email. However, from 30 November 2025, employers will be required to complete and submit the form online digitally; submission by email will no longer be acceptable. There are also important differences with the online form:

• The online form does not accept consultation start dates in the future. This means employers must submit the form on the same day they start consultation.

• Once submitted, employers cannot access a copy of the online form. However, a copy of the completed form must be given to employee representatives at the start of consultation. This means employers must print or save a PDF summary of the online form prior to submission.

Employers will need to build these process changes into any collective redundancy consultation exercise from 30 November 2025. The new online form can be accessed here: Online HR1 form.

The Government has launched a consultation on proposals to extend the rules on immigration right to work checks. Currently employers have an obligation to carry out prescribed right to work checks on all employees prior to starting work. The Government plans to extend these rules so that employers would also be required to conduct right to work checks on gig economy and zero hours workers. The obligation would extend to all individuals engaged on workers' contracts, individual sub-contracts and through online matching services (i.e. platforms that match service providers to potential clients). The consultation is open until 10 December 2025 but there is no date yet for any change to be implemented. 

The Home Office has announced that from 30 October 2025, visa applicants from outside the UK will no longer receive "vignettes" or physical visa stickers in their passports. Instead, applicants will receive an 'eVisa' and must create a UKVI account to link their immigration status to their passport or other identity travel document. This is part of the Home Office's wider transition to a digital immigration system.

The Home Affairs Committee has launched a consultation on the Government's proposed changes to the rules for applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK. ILR rules currently allow most individuals to apply to settle permanently after five years’ lawful residence. Under the proposed reforms, the standard qualifying period for ILR would be extended from five to ten years. The plans also introduce a new "points-based system" granting a faster route to ILR for immigrants who make a substantial contribution to UK society and the economy. Points may be awarded for employment, National Insurance contributions, and community involvement such as volunteering. The consultation is open until 2 December 2025, but there is currently no date for implementation of the proposed changes.

A recent case has considered how much information needs to be provided to an employee ahead of a disciplinary hearing.

The employee in this case was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to two incidents. The first followed an argument he had with a female colleague, during which she accused him of stalking her. That evening, she received an anonymous email which was aggressive and threatening, which she reported to HR, along with a number of other concerns about the employee. An investigation concluded that the employee had sent the email and that this constituted harassment, but most of the other allegations were not upheld. Separately, the employee sent an email to two managers which referenced the outcome of his own unsuccessful complaint against the colleague. Following a disciplinary hearing, the employee was dismissed for these two emails – the first amounting to harassment and the second amounting to a breach of confidentiality.

The employee brought an unfair dismissal claim. He argued that the employer had failed to follow a fair process because it did not give him copies of interview transcripts from the investigation into the complaint against him. He also argued that the script prepared for the disciplinary hearing showed that the outcome had been predetermined. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected these arguments. The EAT said that the employee did not need to have the transcripts of investigation interviews, as these covered a range of issues which were not part of the disciplinary hearing. He was disciplined for two specific emails and he had sufficient information to respond to these allegations. In relation to the script for the hearing, the EAT acknowledged parts were inappropriate because they suggested views that the disciplinary chair should put forward. However, the script asked the employee for his views and did not presume a particular outcome, and so did not suggest that the outcome had been prejudged. The employee therefore lost his unfair dismissal claim.

The employee in this case was an embryologist at a fertility clinic. She made a number of whistleblowing disclosures to managers about clinical procedures and staffing issues. Her line manager subsequently raised concerns about her conduct, which were investigated and led to a disciplinary process. A more senior manager from a different group company, who did not know about the whistleblowing disclosures, was appointed to chair the disciplinary hearing. Following the hearing, the employee was dismissed for misconduct. The employee claimed she had been dismissed for blowing the whistle, and brought claims against her employer as well as her line manager and the chair of the disciplinary hearing.

The Employment Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, not whistleblowing, and rejected the employee's unfair dismissal claim. However, on appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) sent the case back to the Tribunal to consider whether the line manager – who had been motivated in part by whistleblowing – had improperly manipulated the decision to dismiss. Separately, the EAT ruled that the senior manager who made the decision to dismiss could not be personally liable for whistleblowing detriment, when she did not know about the whistleblowing disclosures.

Under the Employment Rights Bill, it will become unlawful to dismiss an employee if she is pregnant, on maternity leave or has given birth in the last 18 months – except in specific circumstances. The Government has launched a consultation on how this new rule will work, including what exceptions should apply. One option being considered is a stricter test for employers to meet to establish that a dismissal during pregnancy or maternity is fair – e.g. the employer would have to show dismissal is necessary to avoid a significantly detrimental effect on the business or the safety or wellbeing of others. Another option suggested is to limit the reasons for which pregnant employees and new mothers can be dismissed – e.g. to gross misconduct and/or redundancies which are necessary to avoid serious financial difficulties. The consultation also considers when the enhanced protection should start and finish, and whether the protection should extend to other types of family leave such as adoption, shared parental, neonatal care or bereaved partners' paternity leave. The consultation is open until 15 January 2026, with the changes expected to come into force in 2027.

The Employment Rights Bill will also introduce a new 'day one' right to bereavement leave for employees following the death of a family member, including pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. The Government has launched a consultation on how this will work in practice. The consultation seeks views on which family members should be covered, the types of pregnancy loss in scope, when and how bereavement leave should be taken and the notice and evidence requirements. The consultation is open until 15 January 2026, with the changes expected to come into force in 2027.

The Government has launched two consultation papers regarding changes to trade union rights under the Employment Rights Bill:

• Duty to inform: Under the Bill, all employers will have a duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. The Government has launched a consultation on how the new duty will operate. The Government is proposing that employers would have to provide a written statement which includes a brief overview of the functions of a trade union, a summary of the statutory rights of trade union members, a list of recognised trade unions (if any) and a signpost to a government site with a list of current unions. The Government's preference is for a standard statement to be adapted and provided at the same time as a statement of employment particulars, which would then be reissued every six to twelve months or at sector-specific intervals.

• Rights of access: Under the Bill, trade unions will also be given a right to access workplaces to meet, support, represent, recruit and organise workers, or to facilitate collective bargaining. The Government has launched a consultation, seeking views on how the right will operate in practice, including how unions will request access, how and when employers will need to respond to requests, how access agreements will be negotiated and how the Central Arbitration Committee will be involved when parties fail to reach agreement. The consultation also considers the level of fines that should apply to breaches of access agreements.

Both consultations are open until 18 December 2025, with the changes coming into force in October 2026.

On 1 October 2025, new rules on confidentiality provisions and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) came into force under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Under the Act, any confidentiality provision or NDA is unenforceable to the extent that it prevents a victim of crime from reporting the crime to the police or seeking confidential advice and support from specified professionals and family members. Employers who have not already done so should consider updating any template settlement agreements to reflect the change.

The Government has announced that it plans to expand these rules further so that victims and direct witnesses of crime can share their experiences with anyone, for any purpose, including friends, wider family members and journalists. This would be in addition to changes under the Employment Rights Bill which will prevent employers using confidentiality provisions to prevent employees from disclosing information about harassment or discrimination. In both cases, the Government has said that it may allow for exceptions in certain circumstances, which will be set out in future regulations. However, no date has been set yet for these changes. Employment Update will report developments.

According to news reports, the UK Government is preparing to introduce a new national insurance contribution (NIC) charge on partnerships. Such a move would have a significant impact on businesses that operate via limited liability partnerships (LLPs). Assuming the charge mirrors the current employer NICs position, it would amount to an effective tax rise of around seven percent for additional rate taxpayers. The policy logic is to equalise the taxation of earned income irrespective of business operating model. The measure is expected to be contained in the Autumn Budget, which is due to be delivered by the Chancellor on 26 November 2025. For more details, please see our Budget Tracker and briefing Possible introduction of "partnership NICs": what it would mean for private capital managers.

In recent weeks, our team has been involved in a variety of pro bono work for organisations such as Just Like Us, Impact Investing Institute, Foundervine and Chatterbox.

Since the last edition of Employment Update, our work has included:

• advising on the extent of indemnity a company can provide to its board members; 

• advising a client on its bonus scheme and considering when entitlements to bonus arise under the scheme; 

• advising an international insurance and reinsurance broker on a team move and an associated High Court injunction application;

• conducting an independent investigation into discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing allegations on behalf of a global asset management firm;

• supporting a client with a serious disciplinary matter relating to an employee with complex mental health issues;

• advising a client on handling complaints of serious sexual misconduct;
  
  
• supporting a client with how to investigate historic MeToo allegations being raised;
  
  
• advising on an exercise to integrate two businesses across multiple jurisdictions; and
  
  
• advising on a TUPE transfer and related redundancies.