News 📰
Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2025
From 6 April 2025, the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2025 revises particular compensatory awards and statutory payments, as follows:
- In an event of unfair dismissal, the maximum compensatory award has been increased from £115,115 to £118,223.
- There are particular unfair dismissals (including health and safety dismissals) where the minimum basic award has been increased from £8,533 to £8,763.
- When calculating redundancy pay or other awards as are applicable, the maximum has been increased from £700 to £719.
- When failing to distribute tips fairly, and separately not having a written policy in relation to tips and the distribution thereof, the penalty has increased from £5,000 to £5,135.
Vento bands
It has been announced that the Vento bands (compensation for injury to feelings) will increase from 6 April 2025, to the following ranges:
- Lower band - £1,200 to £12,100
- Middle band - £12,100 to £36,400
- Upper band - £36,400 to £60,700
- Exceptional circumstances – more than £60,700
Additional day off before 1 April – does it apply to you?
This year Easter falls towards the end of April. The impact of this is that in the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, there will only have been 7 bank holidays as opposed to the 8 public holidays there usually are when Easter falls earlier in the year (i.e. when Easter is before 1 April).
If an employment contract specifies that employees are entitled to 20 days’ holiday plus the usual bank and public holidays, and the holiday year is from April 2024 to the end of March 2025, then employees will technically have received below the statutory minimum annual leave allowance by one day.
What can be done?
Employers should ensure that their employees are either paid for an additional day’s accrued but untaken holiday for the 2024-2025 leave year, or they should be awarded an additional day’s paid leave to be used up in the 2025-2026 holiday year.
Employment Rights Bill
The Employment Rights Bill has just passed through its second reading in the House of Lords. By way of brief overview, the main amendments are as follows:
- Workers on low and zero-hour contracts who satisfy certain criteria must be offered guaranteed hours after a specified reference period. The length of that reference period is yet to be defined.
- Employers will have a duty to take ‘all’ reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. This is a high threshold, and so adequate training should be provided and policy documents should be updated.
- SSP will be payable to employees earning the Lower Earnings Limit at the increased rate of £118.75 with effect from 6 April 2025.
- There has been emphasis surrounding preventing ‘fire and rehire’ practices. Employees will have 180 days to make an unfair dismissal claim which is just about double the current time limit.
- Awareness will be increased around trade unions, and trade unions will in future be required to provide a 10-day notice period regarding any upcoming strike action.
- Clarification as to when an employer may reject a request for flexible working by an employee has been provided. There are circumstances such as additional cost to the employer, any large changes which have been planned by the employer, and any reduction in quality of work.
Case Law Update 📢
F v J
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a lecturer at a university. He had disclosed to the Respondent that he had autism spectrum disorder. The Claimant was under the impression that nobody was aware of his disability, aside from the Respondent, and wanted it to remain that way.
In 2021, the Claimant brought a disability claim against the Respondent and submitted an application for an anonymity order to the Employment Tribunal. The Claimant was concerned that, if his disability was advertised publicly, it would hinder his ability to obtain employment in the future. After a hearing and a remitted hearing, the Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal: There the judge found that there was evidence that experienced employees who disclose their autism throughout a job application process are less likely to be employed than less experienced employees who have not disclosed any autism diagnosis.
It was decided that the fears the Claimant had that his autism diagnosis being public knowledge later may harm his ability to obtain employment was reasonable. The result in this case was that both parties’ identities were kept anonymous.
Hewston v OFSTED
The Claimant had been hired as a school inspector by OFSTED. During an inspection, there was a rainstorm, after which the Claimant brushed water from the child’s hair and placed a hand on his shoulder, which made the student feel uncomfortable. In the disciplinary hearing, the Claimant stated that he would be happy to undergo training, and would not do anything of the sort again, but nevertheless was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Whilst his claim of unfair dismissal did not succeed in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Claimant’s actions did not warrant him being dismissed: no adequate training had been provided, no safeguarding issues were raised, and the procedure by which the Claimant was dismissed was unfair.
The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the EAT’s decision was upheld.
If any of the information provided raises any further questions, or anyone needs any help with drawing up applicable policy documents and risk assessments, or with training staff, our Employment team is happy to help.
Thank you to our contributors: Phil Cookson, Desley Sherwin, Laura Hill, George Miller and Jessica Corner.