Top 5 recent workplace developments – September 2026
-
Insight Article 17 September 2026 17 September 2026
-
UK & Europe
-
People dynamics
Stay informed with our roundup of the latest employment law developments.
Contents
1. Employment Rights Act 2025: October reforms are almost here
A significant package of reforms will take effect during October 2026, including longer Employment Tribunal time limits, enhanced harassment protections and new trade union rights.
The next phase of the government's employment law reform programme comes into force this October. From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims will increase from three months to six months, potentially extending the period of uncertainty for employers following workplace disputes, grievances and dismissals.
A further package of reforms follows on 30 October 2026, including enhanced harassment protections and a significant strengthening of trade union rights. Employers will be required to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment, raising the threshold from the current duty to take "reasonable steps". New protections relating to third-party harassment will also come into force, alongside measures aimed at strengthening collective workplace rights, including workplace access rights for trade unions and new obligations to inform workers of their right to join a trade union.
Employers should not underestimate the significance of these changes. The new trade union access regime is supported by substantial financial penalties for non-compliance, while the enhanced harassment protections are likely to increase scrutiny of employer policies, training and workplace culture.
Practical point
October may be the most significant employment law milestone for employers since the last tranche of Employment Rights Act reforms took effect in April 2026. Employers should use the remaining weeks to:
- review document retention, investigation and record-keeping processes in light of the extended tribunal limitation periods.
- assess whether current anti-harassment measures satisfy the higher "all reasonable steps" standard.
- review how risks of harassment by customers, clients, contractors and other third parties are identified, reported and managed, including whether further guidance, training or reporting mechanisms are required.
- prepare for the new trade union access regime by identifying who will manage access requests, ensuring they understand the statutory process and timescales, and putting in place practical arrangements to respond to and facilitate requests for access. Watch our short video update for more information.
- review onboarding processes and workforce communications to ensure compliance with the new requirement to inform workers of their right to join a trade union.
2. Government consultation: Pay transparency and pay equality
The government is consulting on wide-ranging pay transparency and equal pay reforms, including a possible requirement for employers to disclose pay information during recruitment.
In July 2026, the government published a Consultation paper on reforms to equal pay and pay discrimination law, building on its 2025 Call for Evidence on this topic. Following movements in this direction within the EU, notably the 2023 Pay Transparency Directive, the most eye-catching proposal is a new pay transparency requirement. If implemented, employers will need to publish pay information in job adverts, or, where there is no advert, provide pay information in writing before any interview. The detail would be set out in regulations but might include requiring employers to disclose salary ranges, fixed salaries, benefits, bonuses or collectively agreed pay information. It’s not yet clear how these obligations would be enforced.
The Consultation also proposes a more interventionist enforcement model. A new Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit could be established within either the EHRC, the Fair Work Agency or as a standalone body. The proposals include giving the Unit powers to compel pay information before a formal investigation, require equal pay audits and job evaluation exercises, and monitor how employers respond to recommendations. Tribunal reforms are also proposed, including wider use of equal pay audits after successful claims, job evaluation schemes where appropriate, and the reintroduction of statutory pay discrimination questionnaires, giving employees a formal route to seek pay information before litigation.
To address race and disability related pay issues, the government has said that it is not proposing simply to extend the existing equal pay regime beyond sex. Instead, it intends to “level up” protection so that race and disability pay discrimination claims have broadly equivalent remedies and procedures to those applied in sex related equal pay cases. It is also consulting on a new duty on parties in an outsourcing chain to take “all reasonable steps” to uphold pay equality, enforced by the new Unit rather than through individual compensation claims.
Practical point
Although implementation is not imminent and the reforms will be phased, employers should start preparing now. This will be especially timely for those embarking on pay transparency projects across Europe. It’s sensible to review recruitment pay practices and salary ranges; consider whether pay structures, grading and job evaluation arrangements are sufficiently robust; and encourage employee self-disclosure of race and disability status, to enable employers to assess any pay gaps there. Employers could look at their outsourcing or contractor arrangements and check whether they could create a pay equality risk.
3. Acas consultation on disciplinary and grievance procedures
Acas is consulting on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures which would place much greater emphasis on the early resolution of workplace concerns.
The Code of Practice is particularly important because Employment Tribunals may increase or reduce compensation by up to 25% where there has been an unreasonable failure to comply with it.
Acas is now consulting on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures which would place much greater emphasis on the early resolution of workplace concerns. While many of the Code’s basic principles remain unchanged, the updated draft reflects Acas' view that many workplace issues should be addressed before they develop into formal disciplinary or grievance processes.
For the first time, the draft Code incorporates a requirement that workplace concerns should be resolved informally where possible, before formal processes are commenced. Acas also proposes a greater role for mediation and facilitated conversations as tools for resolving workplace conflict.
Alongside this, the draft provides more detailed guidance on investigations and suspension, places increased emphasis on avoiding discrimination and making reasonable adjustments in grievance and disciplinary processes and highlights the importance of workplace policies and manager training in supporting effective conflict resolution. Taken together, these proposed reforms represent a shift away from a reliance on formal processes and instead taking steps to find an informal resolution, before positions become entrenched and formal disputes arise.
Practical point
Although the consultation is ongoing, if these changes are implemented broadly in their current form, employers may need to review their approach to workplace dispute resolution. In particular, employers may wish to consider:
- implementing more structured informal resolution processes
- ensuring that informal steps and workplace discussions are appropriately recorded
- making greater use of mediation and facilitated conversations to resolve conflict at an early stage
- whether they are adequately facilitating reasonable adjustments when dealing with workplace concerns
- their use of suspension; and
- refreshing manager training to equip managers to identify and address issues before they escalate into formal grievances or disciplinary procedures.
We will update you further once the consultation outcome has been published.
4. Discrimination: Religion and belief discrimination
The EAT has found that the dismissal of a university professor for comments expressing his anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs amounted to direct discrimination because of his protected belief.
Dr Miller, who was a Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, believes political Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and therefore that political Zionism should be opposed. After several complaints were made about the expression of his views about Zionism, which included comments made to students and student societies, he was dismissed following a disciplinary process. He brought claims including for unfair dismissal and philosophical belief discrimination.
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that Dr Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act. The EAT also found that where an employee's lawful expression of a protected belief forms a material part of the reason for disciplinary action, the employer will not be able to justify that action by pointing to other conduct that was an objectionable manifestation of their belief, and may have warranted disciplinary action.
Practical point
From the outset, employers should identify whether their concerns relate to the employee's protected belief itself or the objectionable manifestation of that belief. Any disciplinary action should be based on genuinely objectionable conduct and not the fact that the employee holds or manifests the protected belief.
University of Bristol v Dr David Miller
5. Discrimination: Part-time workers
The Supreme Court has confirmed that part-time workers are protected from less favourable treatment where their part-time status was an effective cause of that treatment.
Mr Augustine, a private hire driver, worked part-time for Data Cars Ltd, which charged drivers a flat weekly circuit fee to access its bookings system. He alleged that this fee disproportionately affected part-time drivers compared with full-time drivers and amounted to less favourable treatment under the Part-Time Workers Regulations.
The key issue was whether a claimant must show that part-time status was the sole cause of the less favourable treatment, or whether it is sufficient for part-time status to be an effective cause.
The Supreme Court held that the Regulations prohibit less favourable treatment where part-time worker status is an effective cause of the treatment. The existence of other contributing factors may however be relevant when considering an employer's objective justification defence and assessing compensation.
Practical point
This decision resolves a long-standing uncertainty and confirms a broader scope of protection for part-time workers. They must show that their part-time worker status was an effective cause of the less favourable treatment they suffered, rather than the sole cause.
End
