Latest Posts
Contemplating Redundancies as a Consequence of the Budget?
This article was published in the January/February 2025 edition of London Business Matters.
The October 2024 Budget has seen businesses forced to weigh up the prospect of increasing employee costs following a rise in national insurance tax and paying higher minimum wages. A survey of recruiters by KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), reports that vacancies in the market have fallen at their fastest pace in four years. Simultaneously, we have seen an increase in enquiries from employers considering reducing headcount.
Contemplating Redundancies
If your business is contemplating reducing staff, it is important to demonstrate a genuine redundancy situation that meets the legal definition. This is:
- the business is closing or has already closed;
- there is a change in the types or number of roles needed to do certain work; or
- there is a change in location.
Once a genuine redundancy is identified, it is important to ensure that a fair process is followed to avoid a claim for unfair dismissal. Even for those employees who do not have the requisite 2 years’ service to bring such a claim, employers want to avoid any allegation of discrimination where, for example, it is suggested that prejudicial selection criteria was used to select and employee for redundancy.
As a minimum, a fair process requires a ‘genuine and meaningful’ consultation take place with those employees identified as ‘at risk’ to discuss the reasons for the proposed redundancies, the skills and experience needed going forward and the criteria used for selection. The consultation should include ways in which redundancy might be avoided, such as applications from staff to work flexibly on job shares or on reduced hours or, reducing or prohibiting non-contractual overtime. If any alternative options are not viable, then it is important to explain why this is the case. Employers should consider if any ‘suitable alternative work’ is available, engaging and inviting suggestions from the ‘at risk’ employees.
While there is no strict timeframe within which consultations should be carried out (except in redundancies of 20 or more employees which is beyond the scope of this article), these should take place over a sufficient period to demonstrate a fair and meaningful process.
Redundancies are difficult for everyone involved and a fair and transparent process can avoid ambiguity for employees and the potential of legal claims for employers.
To contact our Employment team, please complete the form below.
Read More
The Real Cost of Avoiding Difficult Conversations
This article was published in the May/June 2025 edition of London Business Matters.
In the evolving landscape of Employment Law, one of the most overlooked risk management tools remains having timely, honest and evidence-based conversations. Employers and their managers who shy away from addressing performance issues, interpersonal conflicts, or inappropriate behaviour may find themselves not only presiding over a dysfunctional workplace – but also facing costly employment tribunal claims.
At the heart of many legal disputes lies a missed opportunity: the chance to address an issue when it first emerged. Whether it’s concerns around an employee’s capability, conduct, or fit within a team, early intervention – when handled correctly – can defuse tension, provide clarity, and create a constructive path forward. Crucially, it can also demonstrate that an employer acted reasonably, a central test in many legal claims.
Delaying these conversations, often out of discomfort or fear of confrontation, can send the wrong message. Employees may feel blindsided by sudden disciplinary action or formal procedures, particularly if they were never made aware of concerns informally. This perceived unfairness can become the seed of future grievances, claims of discrimination, or unfair dismissal cases.
From a legal perspective, employers may be able to prove they have a fair reason for any formal legal action however, tribunals will also examine whether the employer followed a fair process, and the employee treated fairly and reasonably. Was there open communication? Was the employee given a chance to improve or respond? Early, documented conversations – rooted in professionalism rather than blame – can become vital evidence that the employer acted appropriately.
So why do managers avoid difficult conversations?
Having practised Law for over 25 years, I’ve supported countless businesses with costly tribunal claims many of which may have been avoided if managers had embraced having those initial difficult conversations.
Below are some of the most common reasons managers avoid difficult conversations:
- Fear of conflict or damaging relationships
- Not knowing where to start after they have let concerns slide
- Lack of time and capacity
- Fear of creating a legal claim
- A culture of blame creating a fear of finger pointing
Training managers in conversation frameworks, emotional intelligence techniques, and a working understanding of employment law principles is essential if they are to feel empowered to manage situations fairly and confidently. It is well worth the investment and may just save your business a costly tribunal claim further down the line.
If you would like to get in touch about our employment law offerings, please contact us via the form below.
Read More
What UK Employers Must Do Now After Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Definition of ‘Sex’
The UK Supreme Court has confirmed that the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity. In other words, even where somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Equality Act even where they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
This ruling, from the case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, has major implications for workplace policies, particularly those relating to single-sex spaces and services. In response, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released some interim guidance affirming that where the law allows for single-sex spaces, these should be based on biological sex.
While many welcome the clarity this ruling provides, employers must not lose sight of a crucial point: transgender individuals–including transsexuals with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate–are still protected under the Equality Act (Eq Act).
Under the Eq Act, “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic. This means anyone who is undergoing, has undergone, or is proposing to undergo a process of gender transition is protected from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in the workplace. That protection stands regardless of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “sex.”
So, while employers must now align certain policies with the biological definition of sex, they continue to have a legal and moral duty to treat transgender staff with dignity and fairness.
Here are five key steps employers should take now:
1. Review and amend relevant policies
Audit EDI and other policies related to single-sex spaces (e.g. toilets, changing rooms, sleeping facilities), roles, or services. Ensure they align with the clarifies legal definition of sex while remaining consistent with your broader equality commitments.
Action: Clearly define single-sex access as based on biological sex and document your rationale.
2. Offer inclusive alternatives where possible
The EHRC encourages practical solutions where single-sex spaces may exclude trans individuals. While the Supreme Court ruling defines single space facilities to be delineated by reference to biological sex, there remains a need to ensure the health and safety, dignity and privacy of all employees. So, providing some gender-neutral facilities (in the form of a room which is lockable from the inside) should be considered.
Action: Consider inclusive options and document any reasons why possible options cannot be accommodated.
3. Communicate changes sensitively
Policy updates should be rolled out transparently and respectfully to avoid creating a degrading or hostile environment for transgender individuals. Help staff understand the legal context while affirming your commitment to a respectful workplace for all.
Action: Deliver briefings and written guidance that reinforce both compliance and inclusion, and avoid any knee-jerk decisions in excluding individuals from a workspace.
4. Train managers and HR teams
Your leaders must understand how to implement the new definitions without breaching anti-discrimination protections.
Action: Train staff to apply the updated policies lawfully and with empathy, especially in sensitive situations.
5. Stay informed
The EHRC plans to issue further detailed guidance. Stay alert to updates and seek legal advice when needed to navigate grey areas.
Action: Set a calendar for regular legal and policy reviews, and sign up for alerts from our team.
Conclusion
The court’s ruling provides legal clarity on “sex,” but the Eq Act still robustly protects trans individuals from discrimination. Employers are therefore encouraged to ensure their leaders, managers and HR are fully versed on how to manage changes following the Supreme Court ruling to continue to support an inclusive workplace and minimise the risk of breaching the Eq Act.
Read More