Welcome to your Quarterly Employment Law Bulletin from Roots HR.
This quarter we update you on…
New statutory rates for 2025
April marks the month each year where changes to statutory rates come into force. Most rate changes take effect from 6th April (to align with the start of the new tax year). National minimum wage changes take effect from 1st April.
The statutory rates for family leave, sick pay, redundancy and the cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards will, from 6th April 2025, be as follows:
| Statutory maternity pay |
£187.18 per week |
| Statutory paternity pay |
£187.18 per week |
| Statutory shared parental pay |
£187.18 per week |
| Statutory adoption pay |
£187.18 per week |
| Statutory parental bereavement pay |
£187.18 per week |
| Statutory neonatal care leave pay |
£118.75 per week |
| Statutory sick pay |
£118.75 per week |
| Statutory guarantee pay |
£39 per day |
| Statutory redundancy pay |
£719 per week |
| Maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal |
£118,223 |
The average gross weekly earnings required to qualify for the various forms of family leave pay will also increase from £123.00 or more per week, to £125.00 or more per week from 6th April 2025.
In addition, we have new figures for national minimum wage which take effect from 1st April 2025:
| Category |
Rate |
| Aged 21 and above |
£12.21 |
| Aged 18-20 |
£10 |
| Aged under 18 (but above compulsory school leaving age) |
£7.55 |
| Apprentices aged under 19 |
£7.55 |
| Apprentices aged 19 or over but in the first year of their apprenticeship |
£7.55 |
These amounts may be replaced by higher payments if the employer chooses to offer more voluntarily or is required to do so under the employee’s contract.
Employment Rights Bill: Update
We received some updates on the Employment Rights Bill in March, clarifying some of the governments intentions on areas such as day 1 rights for employees, statutory probation periods, new entitlements to bereavement leave, changes to “fire and rehire” practices and redundancy consultation requirements.
You can read more about these in our blog and watch our webinar to get yourself up to date.
It’s anticipated that the Bill may receive Royal Assent in the Summer, so we may see some of the changes being implemented from Autumn 2025 onwards. We will of course keep you updated on developments, and we have set out a couple of proposed changes in more detail below.
Government provides clarity on the future of Statutory Sick Pay
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is the amount payable by employers when an employee is absent from work due to sickness. It is currently set at a flat rate of £118.75 (from 6th April 2025). There are certain eligibility requirements, including the fact that SSP is not currently payable during the first three days of absence, known as ‘waiting days’ and that those earning below the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) – £125 per week – were not eligible.
The Employment Rights Bill proposes to make changes to SSP rules. In particular:
- The concept of ‘waiting days’ will disappear. Eligible employees will receive SSP from their first day of absence.
- Those earning below the LEL will now be eligible to receive SSP.
Acknowledging that the rate of SSP would need to be adjusted for those earning less than the LEL, the Government launched a consultation at the back end of last year focused on establishing what percentage of earnings should be used to calculate SSP for these workers. In its response, the Government has concluded that the appropriate percentage rate for SSP is 80% of the SSP flat rate, where 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings is less than the flat rate. To give a real-world example, if an employee earns £100 per week, then they earn below the LEL (and below the current weekly flat rate for SSP). Under the new rules they would be entitled to receive 80% of £100 (or £80) per week as an SSP payment.
Single enforcement body for employment rights: Fair Work Agency begins to take shape
When Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay included a pledge to create a single enforcement body for employment rights, it constituted one of the party’s less eye-catching proposals for reform. However, as the role of the ‘Fair Work Agency’ (as it will be called) begins to take shape under the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill, what is emerging is significantly more striking than might have initially been thought. The Amendment Paper, published last week, includes significant strides to increase the Fair Work Agency’s role.
In particular, it will be able to:
- Bring Employment Tribunal claims on behalf of a worker if the worker has the right to make a claim but chooses not to.
- Offer claimants legal assistance for employment cases, with the cost of this being recoverable from the other side should the claim be successful.
- Enforce failure to keep adequate records of holiday pay for six years – through prosecution and potentially unlimited fines.
- Enforce failure to pay some statutory payments including holiday pay and sick pay by issuing a notice of underpayment. The amount payable in the notice must be paid within 28 days, alongside a penalty payment which must be paid direct to the government. This proposal would bring these statutory entitlements in line with the regime which is already in place to cover national minimum wage.
These are all government amendments, which means they have a good chance of making their way into the final Bill. The implications for employers are potentially huge.
It could fundamentally alter the dynamics of employment litigation in the areas covered by it. For example, an employer hoping to rely on worker loyalty or indifference to keep claims at bay may find that the FWA, seeing a worker’s reticence to claim, simply brings the claim itself. The commercial considerations involved in defending a tribunal claim where the FWA is involved will need to include the additional risk of having to pay the FWA’s costs.
It is early days, and we are a long way off these proposals taking effect. Their eventual impact is likely to be largely dependent on the level of funding and resourcing which the FWA is given to realise its powers.
Court of Appeal agrees with EAT that Ofsted inspector dismissed for brushing water off a child’s head was unfairly dismissed
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Hewston v Ofsted serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of using policies to set clear workplace standards. It also shows that, if an act isn’t misconduct, an employer cannot throw other factors (such as reputational damage and a lack of ‘insight’) into the mix to bump it up. In this case, the Claimant, an experienced Ofsted inspector with a clean disciplinary record, was summarily dismissed after touching a pupil’s forehead and shoulder to remove rainwater.
Touching a pupil was not listed as an example of gross misconduct in the Respondent’s policies, there was no inappropriate motive behind the touching and the Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with several key documents during the disciplinary process, including the pupil complaint and the school’s report into it.
Upholding the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal, the Court of Appeal gave a useful restatement of the principles applying to conduct dismissals:
- Examples of gross misconduct are generally listed in disciplinary policies. If something is not included in the list, this does not automatically mean that an employer cannot summarily dismiss for it.
- However, if the act is unlisted, it will be critical to the fairness of any dismissal to consider whether the employee could reasonably expect the employer to regard the act as serious misconduct having regard to the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances. In this case, it was held that the Claimant could not reasonably have expected the Respondent to regard the act as serious misconduct given the context.
- An employer should not be able to bump up the seriousness of conduct which is not capable of justifying dismissal just because the employee failed to show contrition. Given the conduct was not capable of justifying dismissal, the Claimant’s lack of contrition could not ‘bump up’ the seriousness of the conduct.
- Loss of trust and confidence and the risk of reputational harm can be a relevant factor in reaching a disciplinary sanction but “it cannot be a stand-alone basis for such a decision; there must at least be some misconduct”.
- Employees should be provided with copies of all documents relevant to anything in dispute in the disciplinary process prior to any decision being reached.
If you need support or guidance with any complex employee relations situation, please do contact us.
Neurodivergence: legal responsibilities of employers
Last month marked Neurodiversity Celebration Week, an opportunity to raise awareness of neurodivergence in the workplace. Beyond awareness, employers have legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to support neurodivergent employees.
Neurodivergence as a disability – Neurodivergence covers conditions like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, all of which affect individuals differently. Whether a condition is a disability depends on its substantial and long-term impact on daily activities, such as communication and social interaction. If it meets this threshold, employees are legally entitled to:
- Reasonable adjustments
- Protection from discrimination
- Fair treatment unless objectively justified
- A workplace free from harassment
The impact of ‘masking’ – Many neurodivergent employees mask their condition, appearing neurotypical while struggling internally. Government guidance confirms that coping mechanisms can break down, particularly under stress. The impact of the condition should be considered without coping strategies if it is possible that these will break down. Employers must also consider environmental factors like noise, lighting and fatigue when assessing workplace impact.
Reasonable adjustments – Employers have a positive duty to remove workplace barriers for neurodivergent employees. Adjustments might include:
- Flexible working (adjusted hours, remote work)
- Quiet spaces to reduce sensory overload
- Clear, structured communication
- Assistive technology such as noise-cancelling headphones
- Extra time for tasks or training
Every individual is different, so open dialogue is key.
Tribunal cases: getting it wrong can be costly – There are several tribunal cases which highlight the consequences of failing to support neurodivergent employees:
- Sherbourne v N Power: the claimant had Asperger’s syndrome and was required to work in an open plan setting with a busy walkway behind him; this caused him to feel overwhelmed and distracted. An employment tribunal found that there had been a failure to implement reasonable adjustments to the physical workplace.
- Borg-Neal v Lloyds Bank: Dyslexic claimant awarded £500,000 after being dismissed for using a racial slur in a training session, claiming his condition prevented him from finding an alternative phrase quickly.
- Jandu v Marks & Spencer: Tribunal ruled that failure to adjust selection criteria for a dyslexic employee in a redundancy process was unlawful. The Claimant was awarded £54,000
Summary:
- Neurodivergence can be a disability – Employers must assess each case individually.
- Reasonable adjustments should be considered – Simple changes can remove barriers and improve inclusion.
- Ignoring legal duties is costly – Tribunal claims are rising, and failing to accommodate neurodivergent employees can result in significant compensation awards.
If you need guidance on neurodivergence in the workplace, contact us.
Redundancy and Re-Employment
Redundancy doesn’t always mean the end of employment. Offering alternative roles – whether before notice, during notice, or even after dismissal – can help retain talent. However, it must be handled correctly to avoid legal risks.
Before giving notice – The search for alternative employment should start early in the consultation process. If an employee accepts a new role before notice is given, there’s no dismissal—just a contract update. However, if they reject a suitable role unreasonably, they may lose their right to a redundancy payment (s141 Employment Rights Act 1996).
To withhold redundancy pay, the employer must:
- Make a formal job offer (not just a casual mention).
- Provide clear details on pay, responsibilities, and terms.
- Ensure the role starts immediately after, or within four weeks of, termination.
During the notice period – The duty to search for alternative roles continues throughout notice. If an employee accepts a new role, they enter a statutory four-week trial period (s138 ERA). If the trial fails, redundancy rights remain, unless the refusal was unreasonable.
After employment ends – Once dismissed, employers no longer have a legal duty to offer alternative roles, but re-hiring is an option. Key considerations include:
- Continuity of service – A break of over one week (Sunday to Saturday) resets employment rights.
- Redundancy pay – Rehired employees keep their redundancy pay but must build up two years’ service again for future entitlements.
- HMRC scrutiny – Rapid re-hiring may raise tax avoidance concerns; be prepared to justify the redundancy.
- Advertising new roles – If recruiting for a similar role too soon, an ex-employee could challenge the redundancy’s legitimacy. Waiting for the three-month tribunal claim window to expire is safest.
Top tips:
- Put offers in writing – Include job title, salary, location, and trial period terms.
- Consider a trial period – This can encourage acceptance and clarify employment terms.
- Don’t force alternative employment – Pushing an unwanted role may lead to constructive dismissal (if the employee resigns in response to the (likely) repudiatory breach) and/or a Hogg v Dover College dismissal, in which case the employee can continue to work in the new role (with continuity of employment intact) whilst bringing a claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay in respect of the old role.
Handled well, alternative employment can be used to retain skills and reduce redundancies. If you are planning for a structure which may include redundancies you may want to request our free factsheet, watch our webinar or contact us for support.
Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Proactive Approach in Light of the Worker Protection Act 2023
And finally, it’s been 6 months since the Worker Protection Act came into force in October 2024. The legislation introduced a more robust framework for accountability, placing greater responsibility on employers to protect their employees from harassment, including by third parties such as service users or contractors. Are you complying with the increased requirements on employers to prevent sexual harassment?
We recommend a proactive approach in line with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) 8 step guidance including adapting policies, undertaking risk assessments engaging with staff and undertaking training.
Roots HR offers a Harassment Training and Resource Pack to support you on your compliance journey – if you want to know more about this please contact us.
And remember, if you are a COMPLY subscriber you can access this pack for FREE via your log-in to our website! Find out more about our COMPLY HR advice line service here.
