Top 5 recent workplace developments - October 2026

Stay informed with our roundup of the latest employment law developments.

Contents 

1. October’s employment law reforms – what employers need to know
2. New statutory bereavement leave from April 2027
3. Whistleblowing changes ahead?
4. Equal pay: recruitment and retention needs can justify pay differences
5. Reasonable adjustments: individual employees may be personally liable

1. October’s employment law reforms – what employers need to know

We touched on this in last month’s Top 5, but a significant package of Employment Rights Act reforms is now taking effect, extending Employment Tribunal claim deadlines, strengthening harassment protections and introducing new trade union access rights.

The first change took effect on 1 October 2026, when the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims increased from three to six months. The extension only applies to claims arising from acts or omissions occurring on or after 1 October 2026, meaning employers will need to navigate two different limitation periods for some time. The longer period to bring a claim may mean more time before employers can be confident that a dispute will not lead to a claim.

A further package of reforms takes effect on 30 October. Employers will be required to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment, while new protections will create potential liability for harassment by third parties such as customers, clients, contractors and suppliers. At the same time, trade unions will gain new statutory rights to seek physical and digital access to workplaces, including where the employer does not recognise a union. These changes form part of the Government's wider agenda of strengthening worker protections and collective workplace rights.

Practical point

With these reforms now taking effect, the focus should shift from preparation to implementation. HR and legal teams should ensure document retention and case management processes reflect the longer Employment Tribunal limitation periods and review whether anti-harassment policies, training, reporting channels and workplace risk assessments are capable of meeting the higher "all reasonable steps" standard, particularly in customer-facing environments and other settings involving regular interaction with third parties, where existing anti-harassment measures may need strengthening.

Employers should also ensure there is a clear process in place for handling trade union access requests. Watch our short video update for more information.

2. New statutory bereavement leave from April 2027

The Government has confirmed that a new day-one right to unpaid bereavement leave will take effect in April 2027. It will cover employees who lose a spouse or partner, parent, adult child or sibling, as well as certain step, half, adoptive, kinship care and foster relationships. Currently, there is no general statutory right to bereavement leave, other than in certain circumstances, such as reasonable time off following the death of a dependant, or Parental Bereavement Leave following the death of a child under 18 or a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Employees who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, including miscarriage, termination and unsuccessful IVF embryo transfer, will also be entitled to up to two weeks' unpaid leave. The right will extend to partners, the other biological parent and intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement.

Employees will be entitled to up to two weeks' leave, based on their average work pattern, which may be taken flexibly within 56 weeks of the bereavement, including as single days. The 56-week period will run from the date of the death or pregnancy loss, or the date the employee became aware of it. The detailed rules will be set out in regulations, with guidance for employers and employees also expected to follow.

Practical point

Although the full details are still awaited, employers may wish to start reviewing their current bereavement, compassionate leave and pregnancy loss arrangements, and consider whether managers need guidance or training on handling bereavement and pregnancy loss.

3. Whistleblowing changes ahead?

The Government is consulting on whether the UK’s whistleblowing framework works effectively.

The proposals could widen who is protected and introduce new requirements for employers. Some of the issues under consideration as part of the consultation include:

• Who is protected: whether protection should extend to further groups, including some self-employed people and potentially volunteers.
• What can be reported: whether protected wrongdoing should cover AI-related risks, misuse of public funds and abuse of authority.
• How concerns are raised: whether the public interest test and current reporting routes are too complex, and whether concerns could be raised through channels such as trade union officials.
• Employer procedures: whether public sector employers and private employers with 50 or more employees should be required to have effective whistleblowing procedures, backed by possible civil penalties.
• Enforcement and support: whether the deadline for seeking interim relief should increase from seven to 14 days, and whether a central body or AI-assisted signposting tool is needed.
• Financial incentives: whether the Serious Fraud Office should reward people who report serious economic crime.

The consultation closes on 8 January 2027.

Practical point

No changes have yet been made, but this is a useful reminder for employers to check that they have effective whistleblowing arrangements in place. Employers should ensure that their policy is clear and accessible, offers trusted reporting channels, and equips managers to recognise, escalate and respond to concerns without retaliation.

4. Equal pay: recruitment and retention needs can justify pay differences

Employment Appeal Tribunal decision provides insights into when market forces may objectively justify pay differences between groups carrying out work of equal value.

In Next Retail Ltd and another v Thandi and others, predominantly female retail sales consultants brought equal pay claims because they were paid less than warehouse operatives, despite carrying out work of equal value. The Employment Tribunal found that the difference particularly disadvantaged the retail workers and rejected Next’s explanation that it needed to pay higher rates to recruit and retain warehouse staff.

The EAT upheld Next’s appeal in relation to basic pay and certain benefits. It found that the Tribunal had taken too narrow an approach: the higher warehouse rates were intended to ensure that Next could recruit and retain enough staff to maintain its warehouse service. That was a legitimate business aim, not simply a cost-saving measure. As the Tribunal had found that reducing warehouse pay would jeopardise the service, the pay difference was a proportionate way of achieving that aim. However, Next did not successfully justify differences relating to night-time premiums and paid rest breaks, which were found to be cost-saving measures.

The EAT also rejected the argument that Next had directly discriminated against the retail workers because of their sex. The Tribunal had found that sex played no part in Next’s pay decisions. The question was instead whether the pay difference placed women at a disadvantage and, if so, whether Next could objectively justify it, which in this case they could.

Practical point

A pay difference between groups carrying out work of equal value may be justified where there is evidence of genuine, role-specific recruitment and retention pressures, according to this decision. However, this may not be the end of the story as both parties have indicated an intention to appeal. A useful takeaway is that employers should clearly identify and document the reason for any pay difference, keep the supporting evidence under review and distinguish genuine recruitment needs from measures that are simply intended to reduce costs.

Next Retail Ltd and another v Thandi and others [2026] EAT 130

5. Reasonable adjustments: individual employees may be personally liable

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that individuals can be personally liable in addition to the employer in relation to a failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee.

In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others, an agency tutor, Ms Merriman, who provided home tutoring to a learner with special needs developed disabilities and asked to teach online because she found it difficult to attend the pupil’s home.  Unfortunately, to cope with remote tutoring, the learner would have required a care worker to be with them and so Ms Merriman’s work tutoring ended. She brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments against the agency and four of its employees. The Employment Tribunal allowed the claim against the agency to continue but struck out the claims against the individuals, on the basis that only an employer owes the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The EAT overturned that decision and restored the claims against the individual employees. Although the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, a company acts through its employees and agents. An employee who is personally involved in an act that breaches that duty may therefore also be personally liable. This does not mean that the individuals will necessarily be found liable: the case will return to the Employment Tribunal so that the allegations against each of them can be set out and considered properly.

Practical point

Managers and HR professionals involved in decisions about workplace adjustments may be named personally in discrimination claims. Employers should ensure that requests for adjustments are considered promptly, responsibilities and decisions are clearly recorded, and those involved receive appropriate training and support.

Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128