Top 5 UK recent workplace developments – September 2025

Stay informed with our roundup of the latest employment law developments impacting employers, HR teams, and legal professionals.

1. Employment Rights Bill update: what’s happening next?
2. “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court decision: repercussions still ongoing 
3. New technical guide on neonatal care leave and pay published
4. Sexual harassment: when is “during the course of employment”?
5. Automatic unfair dismissal: whistleblowing 

1. Employment Rights Bill: what’s happening next?

The Employment Rights Bill has been billed as the biggest shake up of employment rights in a generation – what are the latest developments?

The Government is back from its summer break, and following the cabinet reshuffle, some commentators have speculated about whether this will impact the Employment Rights Bill. Our view is that it is unlikely that the Bill will be derailed now. 

On 15 September 2025, the House of Commons voted on the various amendments made by the House of Lords. Key House of Lord’s amendments included a six-month qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal and a change to the planned duty on employers to offer low and zero-hours workers a guaranteed hours contract. Instead, the Lords suggested it just to be a right for workers to request such a contract. We understand that any non-government amendments have been rejected by the House of Commons and that a committee will now be required to explain the reasons to the House of Lords. At this stage, it is unclear when the Bill will be finalised. 

Even once the Bill is passed, many of the Bill’s proposals will be subject to consultation before regulations bring them into effect.  We are expecting consultations to be launched over the next few months on:

• ‘Day one’ unfair dismissal protection, including the new statutory probation period
• Changes to collective redundancies
• Flexible working reforms
• Trade union changes
• Restrictions to the use of zero hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’

Practical point:

We will provide further updates regularly on progress.

2. “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court decision: repercussions still ongoing

The Supreme Court’s decision on the meaning of ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 continues to have a ripple effect

Following the conclusion of a 6-week consultation process, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has provided its final updated Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to the government for approval. It will now be considered by the government. 

The guidance has not been shared publicly but it does not appear to cover private employers who do not provide services to the public.

Separately, a recent decision in the County Court has followed the “For Women Scotland” principles and concluded that a trans woman who was excluded from female-only eight-ball pool competitions by a sporting association, which limited participation to players who were female at birth, could not claim to have been discriminated against on grounds of her gender reassignment and so could be validly excluded from the competition.  

Note also that the Sandy Peggie v Fife NHS Employment Tribunal case (in which a nurse claimed she was subjected to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act 2010 by being made to share a changing room with a transgender woman) has recently heard final submissions. A Judgment is likely to be issued by the end of this year. 

Practical point:

It is likely that there will be further developments in this area soon and we will keep you up to date.  

3. New technical guide on neonatal care leave and pay published

The government has published a new technical guide for employers on neonatal care leave and pay

Neonatal care leave and pay, introduced on 6 April 2025, gives eligible employees up to 12 weeks’ leave and pay if their baby needs at least 7 continuous days of neonatal care in the first 28 days after birth.

The newly published technical guide contains detailed guidance and examples to help employers navigate the new rules. It covers areas such as eligibility, record keeping for HMRC and how to fit the entitlement around other types of family-related leave. It also addresses questions such as what happens if there are multiple babies in neonatal care or if a baby is re-admitted into neonatal care. It also signposts resources to help support employees whose babies need neonatal care.

The guidance sits alongside the existing employer guide published by the government earlier this year. ACAS also previously published practical guidance for employers and employees. 

Practical point

The fact there are two categories of leave and different notice requirements for each makes the scheme complex for employers to operate in practice. Employers will welcome this additional guidance. For more information about neonatal leave and pay, read our detailed update.

4. Sexual harassment: when is it “during the course of employment”?

A recent case highlights how an employer can be liable for activities linked to employment

Grafters Group provided hospitality services and the Claimant was a hospitality agency worker. The Claimant (AB) believed she was booked to work at Hereford Racecourse. She missed the arranged transport and accepted a lift from a male colleague, CD.

During the car journey, AB was subjected to sexual harassment by CD.  AB reported the incident to the police and to the employer, who failed to take any action.  AB resigned and brought a claim for sexual harassment. Initially, the Claimant’s claim failed. The Employment Tribunal accepted that harassment occurred but found that CD had not acted in the course of his employment, so the employer was not liable.

Disagreeing with the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) highlighted that: 

• that the employer is liable for ‘anything done’ by an employee in the course of their employment
• it does not matter whether that behaviour is done with the employer's or principal's knowledge or approval, and
• if there’s a sufficient ‘nexus or connection with work’, then an employer may be liable for the behaviour even if it is not done at the workplace or during working hours. 

The EAT concluded that although the initial Tribunal had been clear that CD had sexually harassed AB, they had not properly considered whether the incident was done “in the course of employment”. The case has been sent back to the Tribunal to consider whether there was a sufficient connection between the lift provided by CD and the work to hold the employer liable. 

Practical point: 

Since October 2024, employers have been subject to a proactive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Provisions in the Employment Rights Bill that are expected to come into force from October 2026 will add to this by making employers liable for harassment by third parties and require employers to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment.  

To address this, employers should consider taking steps such as:

• updating policies and procedures
• regularly training staff on inclusive workplace culture and specifically on the prevention of sexual harassment
• carrying out a risk assessment and addressing the circumstances which might give rise to harassment by staff or third parties
• requiring third parties to adhere to codes of appropriate behaviour where possible

Clyde & Co provides investigations training and also inclusive workplace e-training for staff covering all types of bullying and harassment, click here to learn more.  

Be aware the EHRC is taking a more active role in intervening where it considers employers have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace so make sure you are training staff on workplace behavioural expectations and taking other preventative steps. Read more on how we can help.

AB v Grafters Group Ltd ta CSA Catering Services International

5. New case illustrates the importance of only making post termination commitments that the organisation intends to fulfil

Mr Dixon worked for a market research company from 2006 and in 2011 he was granted share options via the company’s unapproved employee share option plan. In 2014 he was told that if his performance did not improve then his employment might be at risk. HR sent him a draft settlement agreement which didn’t mention the share options.  

Following this, he had a meeting with the CEO and he was asked to continue working for a few months longer, as well as being asked to agree to various restrictive covenants. Mr Dixon acquiesced, understanding that his share option entitlements remained unaffected.  The CEO subsequently confirmed that his share options would be added to the settlement agreement and would vest in line with current conditions.  This was then included in the settlement agreement terms. However, after termination, his employer refused to pay out on his share options, saying that the share scheme did not permit post termination pay out.

The court concluded that Globaldata had not validly exercised its discretion to extend the share options post the termination of the claimant’s employment. However, the Mr Dixon had relied on the CEO’s assurances – and that created a ‘proprietary estoppel’ entitling him to remedy.

In summary this meant that the court found that there had been:

• A representation or promise or other assurance, leading to an expectation of proprietary interest
• Reliance by the claimant on that interest, and
• Detriment to the claimant as a result. 

This then allowed the court to make an award that reflected the proprietary interest. 

Practical point:

Employers should be aware of the importance of following through on promises to employees and the potential for employees to bring claims outside of the Employment Tribunal, where costs are more of an issue.