April is on the horizon, and this year, it’s bringing more than lighter evenings and a hopeful glance at the weather forecast. From next month, a fresh wave of reform under the Employment Rights Act 2025 is set to start to ripple across workplaces and firms nationwide.
The upcoming changes represent a deliberate rebalancing of employee rights, employer responsibilities and risk across the employment relationship. For some organisations, it will mean revisiting long-standing practices; for others, it may require a more fundamental deliberation of how they manage people, processes and compliance.
In this edition of our Employment Law bulletin, we break down what is changing in April 2026, exactly when it takes effect, and what it means in practical terms for employers navigating this new territory. Although major elements of the Act are being phased in throughout 2026 and 2027, April 2026 marks a clear operational pivot point.
News 📰
Here’s a quick reminder that the annual increase in compensation limits for employment tribunal awards and other statutory payments will take effect for dismissals on or after 6th April 2026. The two key increases are:
- The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal increases from £118,223 to £123,543
- The limit on a week’s pay increases by 4.45% from £719 to £751
We await confirmation from the government whether the limit on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal is being abolished for dismissals occurring after 1 January 2027 or whether it will apply to any tribunal decisions made after 1 January 2027.
Employment Rights Act 2025 – key dates in April
01 April 2026
The very beginning of April 2026 will see the repeal of the levy that trade unions and employer associations pay to the Certification Officer. The levy funds the work of the Certification Officer, the regulator responsible for overseeing trade unions and employers’ associations.
The levy is a mandatory annual payment imposed on all trade unions and employers’ associations. It is designed to recover operating costs, including:
- Investigations into complaints
- Oversight of annual returns
- Regulation of political funds
- Enforcement of statutory duties.
06 April 2026
On Monday 6th April 2026 many crucial and important changes will be rolled out, including the ‘day one’ changes. Paternity leave and ordinary unpaid parental leave will become day one rights for all employees, replacing the previous 26-weeks’ qualifying service period required (and with a temporary reduced notice period of 28 days for those who apply for leave from 6 April 2026).
Other family-related statutory pay - for example, maternity, adoption, shared parental, neonatal care, and bereavement pay - also increases to £194.32 per week (or 90% of earnings if lower) but the 26-week qualifying period for paternity pay remains unchanged. The restriction on taking paternity leave after shared parental leave will be removed.
Further, bereaved partners’ paternity leave will enable bereaved fathers and partners to take up to 52 weeks of paternity leave if the mother or primary adopter passes away within the first year of the child’s life.
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will become payable from the first day of sickness absence, as opposed to day four. The key implications include:
- Employers must budget for more SSP outlay
- Absence-management processes need to be updated to reflect immediate eligibility
- HR teams will need to ensure payroll systems and sickness-reporting workflows are aligned.
The Act will strengthen protections for workers who ‘blow the whistle’ on sexual harassment. This may result in an increase in the number of employees who come forward with claims of harassment.
The Act will also simplify the trade union recognition process. The current 10% threshold for the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to accept a trade union application may be amended to between 2% and 10%. Although these provisions could be brought into force without substantive regulations, it seems unlikely this will happen until regulations amending the percentage are made.
The protective award for a failure to comply with collective consultation obligations is doubled from 90 to 180 days’ pay, and voluntary action plans on gender equality and supporting employees through menopause can be introduced, as well as providing menopause guidance. The voluntary plans are expected to become mandatory sometime in 2027.
07 April 2026
The Fair Work Agency will be established on 7 April 2026, but it is unclear when its enforcement powers will come into force. The power to delegate functions may not be exercised immediately.
How will these changes affect businesses?
Businesses should be looking to:
- Update internal policies e.g., sickness, dismissal, family leave, whistleblowing
- Train managers on the new obligations
- Review employment contract templates and staff handbooks
In terms of the operational and financial adjustments, payroll and HR systems must be updated for day-one SSP. Businesses may need to allocate additional budget for sickness-related costs and internal HR teams will need to manage more early-stage absence queries.
In the weeks ahead, we encourage employers to move from awareness to action, ensuring that when the new regime sweeps in, your organisation is not merely reacting, but operating with clarity and control. Thoughtful preparation today is far preferable to urgent troubleshooting tomorrow.
Case Law Update 📢
Mr Rich Daudet v Computacenter (UK) Ltd
The ET ruled that ‘psychic’ abilities do not count as a protected religious or philosophical belief.
Mr Daudet was working as a Senior Computer Analyst and described himself as a black Christian who was convinced in his own ability to see the future through his dreams. In 2021, Mr Daudet apparently dreamed of meeting a woman named Vanessa. In August 2022, Mr Daudet was introduced to a new recruit named Ms Vanessa De Souza, and following a seemingly harmless interaction proceeded to message her repeatedly over the course of 11 months in an attempt to forge a connection.
The ET determined that to be a protected belief under the Equality Act, a philosophical belief must be genuinely held, concern a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness and importance. Such a narrowly focused belief did not qualify at a sufficient level of importance. Further, upon reviewing Mr Daudet’s own evidence, the ET held that the belief did not influence his way of life and hence did not meet the requirements of a protected characteristic.
Key Takeaway for Employers: The case highlights that not all strongly held personal beliefs, particularly those of a narrow or individualistic nature, qualify for protection. Also, this case stands to confirm that harassment does not require intent, since actions do not have to be carried out with the purpose of offending or harming another person. In fact, harassment is judged by the perception of the person who is subject to the actions.
Briggs v The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland
The ET ruled that Ms Briggs was unfairly dismissed for poor performance due to the Respondent’s failure to issue warnings for poor performance.
Ms Briggs was employed as a social media/digital content producer. The Respondent had concerns regarding her performance, specifically low output and errors in comparison to her colleague and put her through multiple informal performance improvement plans before being dismissed.
While the ET accepted that the Respondent had valid capability concerns, the dismissal was deemed premature. The ET noted that the Respondent failed to follow its formal performance policy and issue formal warnings, which were required to allow an employee to improve.
Key Takeaway for Employers: This case is a reminder of the importance of an employer following their own policies and procedures. Implementing performance improvement plans alone does not aid an employee in their career development, but providing support, training and giving adequate time for the employee to improve are some of the crucial responsibilities for an employer towards their employees.
Chand v EE Ltd [2026] EAT 17
The EAT ruled a dismissal unfair because the Respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds for its belief that the employee had committed fraud.
Ms Chand was dismissed for gross misconduct following four incidents which the Respondent collectively characterised as fraudulent.
The ET later found that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that any of the four incidents involved fraud. However, it upheld the dismissal on the basis that one incident alone amounted to an “egregious” policy breach.
On appeal by both the Claimant and Respondent, the EAT allowed Ms Chand’s appeal, emphasising that the ET had failed to identify the Respondent’s principal reason for dismissal. Although the evidence showed that the operative reason was a collective allegation of fraud, once the ET concluded that the belief in fraud was not reasonably held, the dismissal could not stand, as relying on a lesser allegation was not the real reason for the dismissal.
Key Takeaway for Employers: This decision highlights the importance of identifying an employer’s principal reason for the dismissal, ensuring that the belief is reasonably held. The EAT clarified that ETs cannot substitute their own reasons for dismissal if the composite reasons are not supported by evidence.
And finally… one to watch: You may have spotted that large employers are being encouraged to publish action plans outlining how they will tackle gender pay gaps and support staff through menopause under new government proposals.
The Minister for Women and Equalities has announced plans that will apply to organisations with 250 or more employees. They propose to encourage employers to do more than simply reporting pay gaps; they want those employers to take practical steps to address the pay gaps.
The plans will initially be voluntary from April 2026, but the government has indicated that it intends to make them mandatory in future through legislation.