With several changes to employment law occurring this year, considering the financial implications of withdrawing a job offer after acceptance could easily slip through the net, and a recent case heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems, acts as a timely reminder.

Background

In Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems, Mr Kankanalapalli (the Claimant) was offered the role of Project Manager, subject to the following conditions:

• Satisfactory references;
• A right to work check; and
• The successful completion of a six-month probationary period.

The offer letter included the key terms of the employment contract but was silent about a notice period. Following a discussion between the Claimant and Loesche Energy Systems (the Respondent), it was agreed that the Respondent would contribute £3,000 towards the Claimant’s relocation costs. The Claimant subsequently accepted the job offer and emailed a completed new starter form, his referee details and electronic copies of his right to work documentation, stating that he would provide originals on his start date.

Three weeks before the proposed start date, the Respondent informed the Claimant that, due to project delay, it was no longer able to offer the contract.

Employment Tribunal

The Claimant brought a claim against the Respondent in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for breach of contract. The Respondent argued that no contract had been formed and thus there had been no breach, as the job offer remained conditional when it was withdrawn. The ET agreed with the Respondent’s approach and subsequently, the Claimant’s claim was dismissed.

Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Judge Walker ruled that the condition of the successful completion of a six-month probationary period was clearly subsequent, as this can only occur after the contract has started. She explained in her reasons that, because there was no attempt to differentiate between the three conditions as either precedent or subsequent in the offer letter, all three were to be grouped together and interpreted as conditions subsequent. The effect of this was that a contract was found to have been formed, and therefore notice should have been given to terminate the contract when the offer was withdrawn. As the contract was silent on notice, reasonable notice was required to be given, which could be more than the statutory minimum of one week depending on the circumstances. In these particular circumstances, Judge Walker decided three months’ notice would be reasonable, given the Claimant’s seniority, the lengthy recruitment process and the Claimant’s international relocation. In failing to give reasonable notice, the Respondent had breached the contract, and it was therefore ordered to pay the Claimant a sum equivalent to his three months’ notice.

What does this mean for employers?

This case is an important reminder that a binding contract can be formed and therefore be enforceable once a job offer has been accepted, even before the employee’s start date. Breaching this contract can be costly and employers should be clear on their obligations when withdrawing a job offer after acceptance.

Where employment contracts or offer letters are silent on the amount of notice required to terminate the contract lawfully, employers should be mindful about what would be considered reasonable notice in the circumstances, rather than defaulting to the statutory minimum period of one week.  Not serving any notice, or the insufficient amount of notice to terminate the contract can be a costly mistake and give rise to a claim for damages.

Recommended steps

• Be sure to include clear wording in offer letters about whether conditions of someone’s employment are precedent or subsequent
• Include express notice clauses in offer letters and employment contracts and ensure that they are consistent with each other
• If you are considering withdrawing an offer of employment after it has been accepted, chances are you will have to give some notice to the other party. You should seek legal advice as to the correct amount of notice, and process to be followed, even if the employee has yet to start their employment

If you would like any guidance on this particular topic or would like to enquire about a review of your internal processes, please get in touch with us on 01904 437680.

At Torque Law, we strive to provide our clients with a strong foundation of knowledge and preventative measures to avoid possible tricky situations. With major changes having been implemented under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA25) over the Easter weekend, we want our clients to be sure that they have the key points to hand. Read on to find out what impact these have on your organisation’s practices and procedures.

Effective from 6 April 2026:

DAY ONE RIGHT TO PATERNITY LEAVE AND UNPAID PARENTAL LEAVE

Employed parents of babies born on or after 6 April 2026 are eligible to take Paternity Leave regardless of their length of service, subject to the relevant notice requirements which remain unchanged. This does not affect the right to Statutory Paternity Pay, which remains subject to certain qualifying conditions, including 26 weeks’ continuous service.

Also from 6 April, all employed parents of children under the age of 18 benefit from the right to take up to 18 weeks’ Unpaid Parental Leave from the first day of employment. Previously, this was subject to an employee having one year of continuous service. Other conditions relating to Unpaid Parental Leave remain the same. As a reminder, this leave can be taken at any time before the child’s 18^th birthday and is subject to restrictions in relation to the amount of leave that can be taken each year and the duration of such leave.

BEREAVED PARTNERS’ PATERNITY LEAVE

Also introduced at this time is a new entitlement for all employees from the first day of employment. Bereaved Partners’ Paternity Leave is up to 52 weeks’ unpaid leave for employees in the event that their partner or the mother of their child dies within the first year of their child’s life or adoption. Bereaved partners can choose the amount of leave that they want to use but it must be taken in one block and within 52 weeks of either:

• The child’s birth;
• The child’s adoption placement; or
• The child’s entry to the UK in relation to overseas adoptions.

There is no statutory requirement for this to be paid, although employers may wish to consider whether they would like to offer Company pay for all or part of this leave.

Eligibility for Bereaved Partners’ Paternity Leave:

Employees must have responsibility for bringing up the child and be at least one of the following:

• The child’s father;
• Married to, the civil partner or partner of the mother or parent who gave birth; or
• Married to, the civil partner or partner of the primary adopter.

This means that an employee who is separated from their partner can still take this leave if they have ongoing responsibility for the upbringing of the child.

Notice requirements:

Employees can start Bereaved Partners’ Paternity Leave straight away, giving verbal notice, if the leave begins less than 8 weeks since their partner died.

If employees would like to start this leave more than 8 weeks since their partner died, they must give at least 1 week’s notice in writing.

STATUTORY SICK PAY (SSP)

The SSP scheme has undergone two major changes – the removal of the waiting period and the removal of the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL), both of which extend the scheme to a wider range of employees.  Employees are now able to claim SSP from the first day of their absence (rather than from the fourth day), and all employees are eligible regardless of their level of pay. SSP is paid at the flat rate set by the Government each April, or 80% of the employee’s earnings (whichever is lower).

WHISTLEBLOWING

The protections for workers who blow the whistle on sexual harassment is strengthened, as this is now a specific protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislations.

COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY PROTECTIVE AWARD

Where organisations fail to consult with employees in the event of 20 or more redundancies within a period of 90 days or less, affected employees are now be entitled to a maximum payment of up to 180 days’ uncapped pay as a protective award, which is double the previous maximum.  This is a notoriously complex area so, if you require advice on a potential or planned redundancy exercise, please get in touch.

SIMPLIFYING THE TRADE UNION RECOGNITION PROCESS

The requirements on trade unions underwent a number of changes in February in relation to industrial action, including the reduction of the notice period for industrial action to 10 days and the mandate for ballots approving industrial action being increased to 12 months.

From 6 April, the trade union recognition process has also been simplified as the ERA25 decreases the support threshold to a ‘simple majority’ in recognition ballots and has removed the ‘likely majority’ test when a union submits a recognition application.

Effective from 7 April 2026:

FAIR WORK AGENCY

The Fair Work Agency (FWA) is being introduced from 7 April to bring together the enforcement of key worker rights into one place, including the National Minimum Wage and agency worker protections. The FWA will be guided by a recently appointed board, which includes business, trade union and independent representation, and has the power to investigate breaches, issue civil penalties and take action against labour exploitation.  Once fully up and running, the FWA will bring about significant changes in the way employment rights are enforced – employers need to be absolutely sure that their records are accurate and up to date.  If you need advice on what to get in order, please just let us know.

Recommended steps:

With the introduction of these employment law changes and many more on the horizon, we strongly recommend preparing your organisation by reviewing policies, handbooks and employment contracts to ensure that they are compliant with the new legislation. We are more than happy to assist with this exercise and to provide training to your teams, so please do get in touch with our friendly team for a quote.

Should you wish to discuss how we can help your organisation, please get in touch with us on 01904 437680.

The Government has launched a fresh round of consultations on various measures being introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, including in relation to new restrictions on the practice of ‘fire and rehire’.

Fire and rehire under the Employment Rights Act 2025

The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces significant changes designed to restrict the use of fire and rehire, with the relevant provisions expected to take effect in January 2027 (having been deferred from October 2026 by the Government).

Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, it will become automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to changes to certain core contractual terms, described as “restricted variations” unless an employer can demonstrate that it is in severe financial difficulty and it could not reasonably avoid making the change. At present, “restricted variations” include (but are not limited to) changes to pay, pensions, total hours and holiday entitlement.

This represents a fundamental shift from the current position, where dismissals linked to contractual changes are lawful and are assessed under the general test of fairness.

What is the consultation about?

The Government is seeking views on whether changes to expenses and benefits, and changes to shift patterns, should be “restricted variations” under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

Expenses and benefits

The Government’s preference is for all expenses and benefits to be excluded from the definition of “restricted variations”. If adopted, this would allow employers to make changes to benefits and expenses through dismissal and re-engagement without triggering automatic unfair dismissal protection, although any such dismissals would still need to be fair.

Shift patterns

The Government’s view is that only shift changes which would have an extreme impact on employees should be included within the definition of “restricted variation”, such as:

• Moving from day to night work (or vice versa)
• Moving from weekday to weekend work (or vice versa)

The Government is also seeking views on whether changes to shift patterns should be entirely excluded from the definition of “restricted variation”.

Responding to the consultation

The consultation closes on 1 April.

Employers, particularly those operating shift-based or 24/7 models, may wish to submit a response to the consultation setting out:

• the operational challenges; and
• the importance of flexibility in their industries.

What should employers do now?

Although the fire and re-hire reforms are not expected to come into force until 2027, employers should start preparing now. Practical steps include:

• Think carefully about timing: Where contractual changes are already under consideration, employers may want to progress them sooner rather than later, and in good time before implementation of the reforms in 2027.
• Review contracts to make sure flexibility and variation clauses are well drafted: It may be possible to rely on such clauses to vary terms and conditions without needing to obtain consent (e.g. mobility clauses or general flexibility clauses), however employers should be aware that their use is heavily restricted and are often interpreted in the favour of employees.
• Consider incentives in return for agreement to changes: Even now, gaining consent to change is the easiest and less risky route. That will be even more the case once the reforms are implemented. In return for consent to a change, an employer needs to provide consideration (i.e. some form of benefit) for the change to be legally binding but also to encourage agreement. It doesn’t have to be a financial incentive – don’t be afraid to think outside the box!
• Robustly maintain financial documentation:  This is important if employers might wish to rely on the ‘financial constraint’ exception.

If you have any questions about the consultation or any of the reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025, please get in touch!

One of the most significant employment law changes in recent years is fast approaching, and it will fundamentally alter how employers manage new starters.

Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, taking effect from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim will be reduced from two years to just six months. In practical terms, this means that anyone recruited from 1 July 2026 (in only several months’ time!) will be able to claim unfair dismissal after only six months’ service.

For employees, this is a major shift in risk, which will soon come much earlier in the employment relationship than is currently the case.

Read on to find out about our upcoming event where we’ll explore these changes further.

Why this is a game-changer

Historically, the two-year qualifying period has given employers a relatively long window to assess suitability, address performance issues, or exit employees without the risk of an unfair dismissal claim when things simply aren’t working out. That safety net is now being dramatically shortened.

With a six-month qualifying period:

• Poor recruitment decisions can turn into legal risk far sooner;
• Effective probationary management and review will become even more important; and
• Processes evidence and decision-making from day one will matter much more.

What this means in practice

The reduction in the qualifying period places renewed emphasis on the early stages of employment, including:

Probationary periods

Probation periods will become a critical risk-management tool. Employers will need to actively manage probation, set clear expectations, hold regular reviews and make timely, well-documented decisions.

Recruitment practices

Getting recruitment right will be more important than ever. Clear role profiles, structured interviews and thorough pre-employment checks will help reduce the risk of appointing the wrong person.

Workforce planning

The change will also affect how employers approach restructures and redundancies, particularly where employees will have unfair dismissal protection much sooner.

Policies and training

Managers will need training to understand the new risk landscape and to handle early-stage performance and conduct issues fairly and consistently.

Preparing now is essential

Although the change does not take effect until 1 January 2027, it will be relevant to new hires from 1 July this year, so employers should be preparing now. Reviewing probation processes, updating contracts and policies, and training managers well ahead of time will be key to managing the increased risk.

To help employers understand what this change really means in practice, we’re hosting  the following free virtual event at 9:30am on 17 March 2026:

Ask the Experts: What the reduced qualifying period to bring an unfair dismissal claim means for employers in practice

We’ll break down:

• What the new six-month qualifying period means in practice;
• Why probationary period management will be increasingly important;
• How to strengthen recruitment to reduce risk;
• The impact on workforce planning, including redundancies; and
• Practical steps employers should be taking now.

The session will include a live, interactive Q&A, with the opportunity to submit questions in advance.

This is an essential session for HR professionals, managers and business leaders who want to stay ahead of the curve and protect their organisation in readiness for this major change.

You can sign up here.

Being an employer today is no easy task. With legal reforms and shifting expectations around work and family life, it can feel like the goalposts are constantly moving. At the same time, businesses must balance operational demands with supporting their workforce and staying compliant with employee rights.

One of my main goals is to help clients navigate these obligations so they can focus on running their business. The Employment Rights Act 2025 represents the most significant overhaul of UK employment rights in a generation, and family-related entitlements are among some of the most impactful changes on the horizon.

While many of these reforms take effect from April 2026, it’s important to recognise that the practical impact for employers starts earlier. From 18 February 2026, employees who are newly eligible for day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will be able to give notice of their intention to take that leave. In reality, this is when employers are likely to start seeing the operational effects of the changes.

Here’s what you need to know:

Family Leave Rights Will Be ‘Day One’ for All Employees

Statutory paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will no longer require a qualifying period of service. Currently, most of these entitlements require an employee to have been employed for several months before they can take the leave. From April 2026, that qualifying period disappears.

In practice new starters can request paternity leave and unpaid parental leave from day one (but they aren’t necessarily entitled to pay – pay eligibility is still subject to separate rules). This aligns these entitlements with maternity leave, which is already a day-one right (but still subject to separate eligibility for pay).

Employer takeaway: HR and people managers must be ready to administer these rights immediately for new hires.

Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave Changes

Currently, taking shared parental leave can prevent someone from taking statutory paternity leave afterwards. That restriction is set to be removed from April 2026, meaning parents can take paternity leave even after shared parental leave.

Employer takeaway: Review internal policies so that sequencing and eligibility for leave is clear. Managers should understand the order in which leave may be taken and how pay rules interact.

Expanded Bereavement Leave (under consultation – expected 2027)

The law is proposed to broaden protected bereavement leave entitlements. At present, statutory parental bereavement leave applies only when a child under 18 dies or in the case of stillbirth after 24 weeks. The consultation proposes that employees experiencing pre-24-week pregnancy loss will also be entitled to protected leave, alongside parents bereaved of a child.

Employer takeaway: This change recognises the emotional impact of pregnancy loss and reflects a broader shift towards compassionate family rights. Policies, documentation and manager guidance should be revised accordingly.

Enhanced protection from dismissal following maternity leave (under consultation – expected 2027)

It is expected that protections currently in place for redundancy during or after pregnancy will be expanded to cover dismissal for any reason during the protected period, and will extend to other forms of family leave. Failure to comply is anticipated to result in automatically unfair dismissal.

Employer takeaway: Strengthened redundancy protections reduce risk.

What This Means for Employers

• Our overarching advice on all of these points is to ensure that you conduct a full review of your policies to ensure compliance with reforms when they come into effect.
• Manager training is also essential, so family leave rights are applied consistently and fairly.
• Workforce planning is more important than ever — sudden unplanned absence is no longer hypothetical, as family leave rights are now more accessible from day one.
• Documentation and communication matter: employers who handle leave well will retain trust and loyalty.

If you’d like our support with implementing any of these steps, please let us know.

October is ADHD Awareness Month – a worldwide initiative aimed at educating the public about ADHD by providing science backed information and resources regarding the condition. This month provides an ideal opportunity for employers to understand their legal obligations in relation to staff with ADHD, or other forms of neurodiversity.

In this article, we discuss the recent case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 which serves as a timely reminder for employers of the Equality Act’s protective purpose and how the courts will apply that purpose in determining whether claimants’ neurodiverse conditions meet the definition of disability.

Background

Mr Stedman has diagnoses of Autism and ADHD and brought claims of disability discrimination against Haven after he unsuccessfully applied for a role with the company. At a Preliminary Hearing, the Employment Judge determined that Mr Stedman was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).

Section 6 EqA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case to a fresh Tribunal.  In doing so, the EAT issued the following helpful guidance in considering whether someone has a disability within the meaning of s6 EqA:

• It is sufficient if the Claimant has a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity;
• The Tribunal must not weigh what a Claimant cannot do against what they can do, either with reference to a single activity or generally in relation to all day-to-day activities;
• In judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the comparison is between the Claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment.

Further, the EAT gave guidance that a diagnosis of Autism or ADHD reflects a clinician’s opinion as to the extent to which that individual’s functioning differs to the “norm”. Accordingly, a diagnosis is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account when considering whether the impairment has a substantial adverse effect.

Key Takeaway for Employers

This ruling potentially signals a claimant-friendly approach to interpreting disability in neurodiversity contexts, therefore, employers should take account of the following:

• Be mindful that an employee may be considered disabled even if their condition only has a substantial adverse effect on one day-to-day activity – for example, they experience difficulty concentrating.
• If an employee has a clinical diagnosis, this may be sufficient to demonstrate that their condition has a substantial adverse effect. Consider a referral to Occupational Health or undertake a Workplace Needs Assessment for advice on what, if any, reasonable adjustments may be necessary to support that employee. Some employees might not know what support they need, so don’t put the onus on them to inform you what adjustments they require.
• Whilst the Stedman case related to Autism and ADHD, the guidance is likely to be applicable to other forms of neurodiversity, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia. Employers should also consider what can be done to support employees with these conditions and all forms of neurodiversity.
• While this case shows that a clinical diagnosis can be material, equally a lack of a formal diagnosis does not mean the definition is not met. Consider how you can support all colleagues to achieve their potential, even if they do not have a diagnosis in place. This is key due to the significant waiting time many individuals’ experience for NHS referrals.
• We would recommend all employers have a neurodiversity policy in place setting out the organisation’s commitment to its legal obligations, the support available to employees and recommended procedures neurodiverse employees can follow.
• Provide mandatory training in relation to neurodiversity for all staff. This helps to foster a supportive and inclusive environment in the workplace.
• Specific training for managers and hiring managers in the organisation, to make sure they have the skills and knowledge to implement reasonable adjustments in their team, and for those applying for roles.
• To make the recruitment process more inclusive, provide clear instructions about the interview or selection process and what it will entail in advance. Be open to being flexible, and consider offering video interviews, providing questions in advance or allowing extra time.

An employer’s legal obligations in relation to ADHD and neurodiversity are not limited to one month. Organisations must create a neuroinclusive environment all year round to support colleagues that need it, and to limit exposure to potential costly legal claims.

If you would like support with training or advice on these issues, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with any member of the Torque Law team (info@torquelaw.co.uk / 01904 437680).

Today marks one year since the introduction of the new duty to prevent sexual harassment – a duty which binds all employers, regardless of size or financial health.

Over the past year, I have spent time delivering training, drafting policies, and advising our clients on how to meet this new preventative duty. It has been so encouraging to see the level of engagement from employers who genuinely want to foster safer, more respectful workplaces.

In summary, where sexual harassment has taken place, employees now have the option to bring an additional claim against their employer if they have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring. Successful claims can result in compensation being uplifted by up to 25% – a significant increase, especial when awards are already substantial.

To successfully defend such claims, employers must be able to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. These reasonable steps can include:

• Implementing and regularly reviewing policies on sexual harassment and dignity at work, ensuring they are clear, accessible, and actively communicated to staff.
• Delivering training to all staff (with more detailed sessions for senior leadership – buy-in at the top is crucial, and our SLT training sessions have been a huge success).
• Providing refresher training at regular intervals, to ensure learning is embedded and remains current.
• Conducting risk assessments to identify where harassment risks may arise (for example, lone working, client entertainment, or social events) – and, of course, implementing any required actions.
• Carrying out regular staff surveys or anonymous feedback exercises to gauge workplace culture and identify any areas of concern.
• Actively promoting a culture of zero tolerance, making it clear that the organisation takes sexual harassment seriously and that complaints will be handled sensitively and fairly.
• Having clear, accessible reporting mechanisms that make it easy and safe for employees to raise concerns.
• Appointing a harassment or dignity-at-work champion to act as a visible point of contact and support for staff.
• Ensuring prompt and impartial investigations into all allegations, with clear record keeping about outcomes and lessons learned.
• Taking disciplinary action where appropriate and ensuring consistent enforcement of standards.
• Integrating respect and inclusion into recruitment, induction, and performance processes, reinforcing expected behaviours from day one.
• Providing targeted training or support for line managers so they can identify and address issues early.
• Setting expectations for third parties (e.g. contractors, clients, and customers) through contracts, communications, and event briefings.
• Reviewing workplace culture and social environments, including work-related events, to ensure they align with organisational values.
• Developing a genuine understanding of cultural attitudes and actively encouraging open dialogue and reporting.

Over the past year, we have seen a clear shift towards a more proactive, preventative approach – one that upholds a culture of zero tolerance and accountability.

Looking ahead

The upcoming Employment Rights Bill (ERB) – relevant parts of which are expected to come into force in October 2026 – will extend an employer’s duty to include preventing third party harassment. This will cover contractors, client’s, customers and other external partners.

While many of our clients have already started to consider third party risks in their prevention strategies, it is important to note that the ERB will cast the net wider, making it an area increasing legal exposure.

To prepare, employers should include consider reasonable steps such as:

• Reviewing risk assessments, specifically focusing on situations where employees interact with third parties (for example, off-site visits, client meetings, or events).
• Updating commercial agreements and supplier contracts to include clauses that reflect your organisation’s stance on harassment and outline expectations for respectful conduct.
• Communicating your zero-tolerance policy to clients, customers, and contractors – for instance, by issuing a statement or letter setting out behavioural expectations.
• Including anti-harassment provisions in event planning, with clear messaging to all attendees ahead of conferences, networking events, and work-related socials.
• Ensuring reporting channels and investigation processes cover complaints involving third parties, not just colleagues.
• Monitoring relationships with third parties and taking appropriate action where concerns are raised or patterns of behaviour emerge.

The ERB will also bring a subtle but important shift change, taking the duty from “reasonable steps” to “all reasonable steps” – effectively increasing the standard expected of employers. Now is the time for organisations to assess whether their current approach would stand up to that higher standard.

Key Takeaway for Employers

One year on, the conversation around sexual harassment has advanced, but the journey toward truly inclusive, safe, and respectful workplaces continues. As legal professionals, employers, and employees, we all have a role to play in shaping the future.

If you haven’t yet taken action, it may feel as though this duty has quietly slipped under the radar, but awareness will only grow once the ERB takes effect and employees become more informed about their rights. Now is the time to act. Taking proactive steps now will not only ensure compliance but also demonstrate your genuine commitment to creating a workplace where everyone feels safe and respected.

By investing in prevention, you’re not only protecting your organisation — you’re shaping a workplace built on dignity, equality, and respect.

If you’d like to discuss practical ways to strengthen your approach, the Torque Law team would be delighted to support you.

This week, major changes were announced by the Home Office marking the start of a “complete reset” to the UK immigration system.

On Monday, the Government published a Statement of Changes (HC 997) set to be implemented from the 22 July 2025 once Parliamentary approval has been obtained. These changes mostly affect the Skilled Worker route, significantly increasing the salary and skills threshold as well as eliminating around 180 occupations from the list of eligible roles under the Skilled Worker route.

The main changes are as follows.

1. Salary threshold

The general salary threshold to qualify for a Skilled Worker Visa will increase from £38,700 to £41,700 per annum in line with the 2024 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings data. Occupations which benefit from lower salary thresholds have also increased at a similar rate. Transitional arrangements will be in place in relation to existing skilled workers and applicants.

2. Skills threshold

New applicants for Skilled Worker Visas will now require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent to RQF Level 6 Qualification resulting in around 180 occupations due to become ineligible from qualifying for sponsorship.

3. Temporary Shortage List (TSL)

Interim measures have now been announced which aim to phase out the current Immigration Salary List in place to the Temporary Shortage List. In the new TSL, some 60 occupations are listed which include jobs that are below graduate level. The main difference between the two lists is that under the new system, sponsors will have time-limited immigration access to hire overseas workers for sub-degree level roles.

Although the Immigration Salary List has yet to be completely scrapped, these new interim measures mark the start of the transition to the TSL.

4. Social Care Worker route abolished

Overseas recruitment of care workers will no longer be permitted from 22 July 2025 in line with the plans announced in the Government’s May Immigration White Paper. Workers who are already sponsored in the sector will be able to continue to extend their stay, change sponsors and apply to settle until July 2028. Transitional arrangements are expected for such workers. However, employers seeking to hire new overseas care workers have until 22 July 2025 to do so.

What’s next?

Many anticipated reforms following the Government’s Immigration White Paper published in May 2025 were not included in this week’s Statement of Changes, notably the 32% increase in the immigration skills charge for sponsors and the English language requirements uplift. However, the announcement did set out the Government’s aim to begin implementing these further changes by the end of this year.

In light of the above reforms, employers should begin reviewing any current overseas hiring strategies, assessing whether they comply with these new changes.

If you are an employer who hires overseas worker and are unsure about how these changes may affect your business, please contact a member of our team and we’d be happy to arrange a chat. We can help you comply with the upcoming changes announced in this week’s Statement of Changes and help you navigate this ever-changing area of law.  

Victimisation claims are a common but often misunderstood aspect of discrimination law. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Kokomane v Boots Management Services highlights a key point for employers: when assessing whether a ‘protected act’ has occurred, tribunals must consider the wider context—not just the wording of the grievance.

The practical effect? The threshold for what qualifies as a protected act may not be as high as you might expect.

Background to the Claim

The Claimant brought a victimisation claim based on two internal grievances:

• The first grievance alleged she had been treated differently than colleagues after an allegation of shouting.
• The second grievance followed up on the first, complaining it hadn’t been properly addressed and also referenced bullying.

Neither grievance explicitly said the treatment was due to her race. However, she was the only black employee in her team, and during grievance discussions, the issue of negative stereotypes about black women and shouting was raised.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT confirmed that a ‘protected act’ does not need to include an explicit allegation of discrimination. What matters is whether the facts could amount to discrimination in law—and critically, what the employer would have reasonably understood from the complaint, taking into account the surrounding context.

That context in this case included:

• The content of the grievance letter (alleging differential treatment),
• The fact the Claimant was the only black employee,
• The discussion at the grievance meeting where cultural stereotypes were raised.

The EAT confirmed that these contextual factors could support the conclusion that a protected act had occurred, even without an explicit reference to race.

Key Takeaway for Employers

Be aware that an employee’s complaint can still be a protected act under the Equality Act 2010, even if they don’t use the word “discrimination” or refer directly to a protected characteristic.

When handling internal complaints, employers should:

• Consider the full context—who is involved, what was said, and any relevant history. Take into account factors which are known to them, but may not be expressly stated in the grievance.
• Avoid taking a narrow or technical view of grievance content.
• Ensure line managers and HR teams are trained to recognise when complaints might engage discrimination protections, even if the language used is indirect.

Understanding the broader picture and thoroughly documenting how complaints are handled can help reduce the risk of claims and show that you take concerns seriously. If you’d like support with training or advice on these issues, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

It is no secret that significant changes are on the horizon in Employment Law. While many of these developments are imminent, an increasing number of clients are approaching us for proactive strategies to stay ahead. However, one major change seems to be slipping under the radar…

Among the proposed measures in the upcoming Employment Rights Bill—expected to come into effect as early as October 2025—is a provision that would make it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for refusing a contractual change. Crucially, employees would be able to bring this type of claim for unfair dismissal regardless of their length of service. This represents a significant shift, placing ‘fire and rehire’ on par with dismissals for protected reasons such as pregnancy or maternity leave, whistleblowing, or raising health and safety concerns.

Fire and Rehire: A Recap

The practice of ‘fire and rehire’ (also known as dismissal and re-engagement) has attracted considerable negative publicity in recent years, but it remains a legitimate, and sometimes necessary, tool for employers. When an employer needs to implement changes to contractual terms and cannot obtain employee agreement, they may resort to terminating the existing contracts and re-engaging employees on revised terms.

Common reasons for implementing such changes include the need to:

• Amend overtime arrangements
• Adjust working hours
• Introduce or modify shift patterns
• Alter the nature of a role or its associated duties
• Remove a prohibitively expensive benefit

Underlying these needs may be a range of business drivers, such as:

• Responding to client or operational demands
• Managing financial pressures
• Staying competitive in the market
• Reducing operational costs

Impact of the Proposed Changes

If such changes are enacted, the Employment Rights Bill will substantially limit employers’ ability to adopt a fire and rehire approach when seeking to make contractual changes. To avoid the dismissals being treated as automatically unfair, the employer will need to show:

• Evidence of financial difficulties that were affecting the business’s viability; and
• The changes were to eliminate, prevent, significantly reduce or significantly mitigate the effects of those financial difficulties; and
• The need to make the change in contractual terms was unavoidable

In reality this means that employers will only be able to rely on this practice when they are in dire financial difficulties which threaten the viability of their business and, even then, they will still need to be able to demonstrate that they followed a proper process, to avoid liability altogether.

Preparing for the Change: Practical Steps for Employers

We have been advising our employer clients to examine and, potentially, broaden specific contractual clauses to enhance the amount of flexibility they have to make contractual changes without consent, in anticipation of this legislative change.

Key clauses to review include:

• Working hours – Rather than prescribing specific shift patterns, consider including a range of working hours (e.g. between 6am–10pm), with a set number of hours to be worked per week or month.
• Location – In addition to stating the employee’s main place of work, consider including a reasonable geographic radius within which their main place of work could be located, to accommodate future changes in location.
• Duties – Broaden the scope of job duties and responsibilities to anticipate needing to make adjustments in response to evolving business needs.

Although there can be legal limitations to their enforceability, it is often useful to include a general variation clause that allows either party to make changes of a non-material nature, to the contract. However, even where such a clause exists, it is well established that employers must ensure they comply with any stipulated conditions—such as providing ‘reasonable notice’ of any proposed change.

Conclusion

The abolition of fire and rehire in its current form will significantly reshape the employer’s approach to contractual flexibility. Taking action now—through thoughtful contract drafting and strategic review—can help organisations retain agility in a tightening legal landscape.