News 📰
Updated timetable and fire and rehire consultation
The Government has released an updated timetable for implementing the various reforms contained in the Employment Rights Act 2025. Most measures remain on track with the dates announced in the original roadmap published in July 2025. However, there is one significant change that employers will need to note.
The new statutory restrictions on fire and rehire dismissals have been pushed back. These provisions were initially planned for October 2026 but will now not take effect until January 2027, with two other major reforms:
- the reduction of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months; and
- the removal of the compensatory award cap.
Bringing these significant changes into force at the same time means January 2027 is shaping up to be a major turning point in terms of implementation of the Employment Rights Act.
Alongside the timetable update, the Government has opened a consultation on how the fire and rehire provisions should be drafted. The consultation looks at which contractual terms should be treated as "restricted variations" once the new regime begins. These include pay-related elements, pensions, working hours, leave and certain shift arrangements.
The consultation also suggests narrowing the list in two specific areas. First, it proposes that most expenses and benefits should be excluded, recognising that employers may need flexibility to adjust these. Second, it indicates that only major changes to shift patterns, such as moving someone from day to night work or from weekday to weekend work, should be captured by the new rules.
This consultation remains open until 1 April 2026.
Flexible Working Consultation
The Government has opened a consultation on how the updated flexible working rules should operate in practice. Although the right to request flexible working became a day-one right in April 2024, the Government is concerned that requests are not always handled fairly and consistently.
Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, new rules are expected to take effect in 2027. These will introduce a "reasonableness test", meaning employers will need to show that any refusal is both reasonable and linked to one of the eight statutory permitted business reasons. Before rejecting a request, employers will also have to follow a clearer consultation process, something the current legislation requires in principle but does not set out in detail.
Running from 5 February to 30 April 2026, the consultation asks for views on how this new approach should work. It acknowledges that not every flexible pattern will be possible in every role but makes clear that employers will need to explain their decision properly and outline why the request cannot be accommodated. If an employee feels a request has been turned down unfairly, they will be able to bring a tribunal claim, and tribunals will be able to require employers to reconsider their decision and award compensation of up to 8 weeks' (capped) pay.
The proposed consultation process would involve meeting with the employee within a set timeframe, giving advance notice of the discussion, and ensuring the decision-maker is present. Employers should explore alternatives during that meeting and must set out the outcome in writing. They will also be expected to ask whether the request should be treated as a potential reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act.
Supporting employees during Ramadan
Ramadan is now underway, and many Muslim employees will be fasting each day from dawn until sunset throughout this period. Fasting often involves early mornings, late evenings and increased prayer, and some employees may notice changes to their energy levels, particularly later in the afternoon.
Employers can support staff through small, practical steps that help create an inclusive and considerate environment. Temporary flexibility around working hours may assist employees who are waking earlier or staying up later for prayers. Some employees may prefer to adjust their break times, for example by working through lunch and finishing slightly earlier. Offering a quiet space for prayer, even on an ad-hoc basis, can also be helpful. It may also be appropriate to take account of energy levels when planning workloads, particularly where roles involve physically demanding tasks later in the day. You may also find that employees who are observing Ramadan wish to use more of their annual leave at this time of the year, particularly if they plan to take time off for Eid celebrations.
Employers may find that many employees who are fasting do not want their work to be adjusted and may not ask for any changes at all. It is also important to remember that some Muslim employees will not be fasting for personal or health related reasons, such as medical conditions or menstruation, and they may not feel comfortable explaining this. With that in mind, employers should remain sensitive and avoid making assumptions about who is fasting or why someone may not be doing so.
Case Law Update 📢
Milrine v DHL Services Ltd [2026] EAT 31
The EAT has confirmed that DHL unfairly dismissed an employee after failings in the internal appeal process.
Mr Milrine, a long-serving HGV driver, had been dismissed on capability grounds after more than two years off sick. He appealed the decision, but the appeal process broke down. The first appeal manager refused to deal with it, the second failed to attend the rescheduled meeting, and although DHL asked the employee and his representative to suggest new dates and an alternative manager, this was never confirmed in writing. No appeal was ever heard.
The tribunal emphasised that an appeal forms part of the overall process, so it must be considered when deciding whether the employer acted fairly. It also noted that a flawed or missing appeal does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, but it is always a relevant part of the fairness assessment.
Key takeaway for employers: A dismissal can be undermined by a weak appeal process, even where the original decision was reasonable. Employers should make sure appeal stages are handled promptly, clearly and in writing, as poor administration at this stage can turn an otherwise fair decision into an unfair dismissal.
Ms S Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd [2026] EAT 12
The case concerns Ms Pal, who had worked for Accenture for around a decade. Accenture operates a progression structure that expects employees to move forward within set timeframes. The company decided she was not on course for promotion to the next level and dismissed her for capability.
She challenged this decision, explaining that her performance had been affected by endometriosis, a long-term medical condition. She argued that Accenture had not properly explored the effect of her health on her performance and had not followed a fair process before deciding to dismiss her. She brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
At first instance, the Tribunal accepted that some parts of the process fell short but nevertheless decided that the outcome would probably have been the same even if the correct steps had been followed. With that in mind, it reduced her compensation under the Polkey principle and dismissed parts of her disability discrimination case, finding that she had not shown that her condition played a decisive role in the dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed with that approach. It found that the Tribunal had not correctly asked what a fair process would have produced and had not fully examined the part that her condition should have played in assessing capability. As a result, the case will be reconsidered.
Key takeaway for employers: This serves as a reminder that where a health condition may be linked to capability concerns, employers must ensure that both the medical position and the fairness of the procedure are assessed carefully before any decision is made.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6
Mr Groom had served for many years as a Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in what was described as a voluntary position. After attending a disciplinary hearing in 2020, he was dismissed. When he appealed, he asked to be accompanied by his trade union representative, but the MCA refused. He then brought a claim, arguing he had the statutory right to be accompanied at his appeal hearing.
Before the argument could be considered, the tribunal had to decide whether he was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act. They initially found that he was not, largely because the documentation referred to him as a volunteer and said he had no obligation to perform work.
The EAT took a different view. It held that each time Mr Groom attended an activity for which payment could be claimed, he was working under a contract for that specific task. The fact that a CRO could choose whether to respond to callouts did not prevent a contract from arising during the period in which they actually performed work. Their freedom to decline a request simply meant there was no ongoing obligation between engagements, not that no contract existed when they chose to participate.
The Court of Appeal upheld that reasoning and confirmed that Mr Groom was a worker during each period of activity. The key factor was the CRO’s right to claim remuneration. Once a CRO attended an activity for which payment was available, they were expected to follow instructions, and the MCA was required to pay them if a claim was submitted. As such, the Court of Appeal found it unrealistic to suggest that there was no intention to create legal relations in those circumstances.
Key takeaway for employers: The decision highlights that calling someone a volunteer is not enough. Courts will focus on the practical reality of the relationship. Employers should therefore revisit both their volunteer agreements and the framework they operate under to ensure they reflect the true nature of the role.
And finally for this month…
Information Commissioner’s Office
We have learned this week that it is now taking the ICO around 40 weeks just to allocate new complaints to case officers. Those complaints might involve, for example, a breach of the one-month timeframe for responding to a data subject access request – effectively giving the defaulting party an additional 9 months to comply, before any correspondence will be sent out to them by the ICO!