Top 5 UK recent workplace developments – October 2025

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

1. Employment Rights Bill: Update
2. Non-disclosure agreements: Criminal conduct
3. Disability discrimination: Reasonable adjustments
4. Unfair dismissal: Disciplinary procedures
5. Sex discrimination, constructive dismissal and whistleblowing

1. Employment Rights Bill: Update 

The Employment Rights Bill is now at the final phase of the UK parliamentary process.

On 28 October 2025, the House of Lords will consider amendments the House of Commons made to the Employment Rights Bill, and why they rejected the Lords’ earlier amendments. If the Lords agree to these changes, the Bill is likely to become law in early November.

Some measures relating to industrial action will come into force when, or soon after, the Bill becomes law:

• Repeal of the previous Government’s legislation on minimum service levels during strikes and measures to undo the majority of the restrictions on calling strike action introduced by Conservative-led Governments over recent years
• Further protections against dismissal for taking industrial action will be enacted

Most of the key measures in the Bill are due to be brought in over the course of the next two years – see Understanding the Employment Rights Bill: Essential Insights for Employers. 

Practical point:

Before the end of this year, the Government intends to launch consultations on the detail of a number of key reforms, including:

• Unfair dismissal 
• “Fire and re-hire”
• Trade union measures 
• Strengthened protections from dismissal for women during and after pregnancy 
• Bereavement leave
• Use of zero hours contracts

2. Non-disclosure agreements: Criminal conduct

New rules governing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) came into force on 1 October 2025.

From 1 October, new rules mean that NDAs and confidentiality clauses that seek to prevent victims from informing certain categories of people about a crime, will be unenforceable. 

Victims of crime who sign NDAs may disclose information about relevant criminal conduct to certain individuals for specified purposes, including:

• The police, to enable them to help with an investigation
• Qualified lawyers, providing legal advice about criminal conduct
• Regulated professionals providing professional support, including healthcare workers 
• Victim support services 
• Regulators
• Close family members 

Practical point:

These changes apply only to NDAs signed from 1 October 2025 onwards, with earlier agreements remaining subject to the previous rules. 

Employers should check that their confidentiality clauses, including those in contracts of employment and settlement agreements, allow employees to make disclosures permitted under the new rules. 

3. Disability discrimination: Reasonable adjustments

When is it reasonable not to make reasonable adjustments?

Employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to support their participation at work. What’s “reasonable” depends on the circumstances; whether the adjustment would help, its cost relative to the employer’s resources, and its impact on operations. Examples include specialist equipment for visual impairments or extra exam time for apprentices with ADHD.  However, as explained here, adjustments will not be required if they would not make a difference. 

A recent case provides further guidance on the obligation to make adjustments. 

Mr Chowdhury, a customer service assistant at London Bridge Station, had a foot condition that made standing and walking painful. After sick leave, he was temporarily placed on the Help Desk and then added to the redeployment register. Medical evidence showed he could work part-time in a sedentary role. Following capability meetings, he was dismissed on 25 August 2021.

He brought claims for:

• Failure to make reasonable adjustments: arguing he should have been offered one of three sedentary roles (stores co-ordinator, document controller, HR administrator) and given more time to be redeployed.
• Discrimination arising from disability: claiming that it was disproportionate to the employer’s legitimate aims.

The Tribunal found:

• Mr Chowdhury was disabled and the employer should have known.
• The duty to make reasonable adjustments arose, but he did not meet the essential criteria for the roles and that training would not compensate for his lack of core competencies.
• The dismissal was proportionate, as alternative measures had already been considered.

It also noted the financial cost of employing someone indefinitely in a role that was not needed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision.

Practical point: 

Employers are not required to place disabled employees in roles that they are unqualified for. If the employee does not meet the basic requirements, they need not be appointed. Employers should ensure job requirements are genuinely essential and keep written records explaining why the employee did not meet them.

Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

4. Unfair dismissal: Disciplinary process

The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that, in assessing the fairness of a dismissal, the focus should be on how the disciplinary allegations were handled, rather than the surrounding circumstances.

Following an argument between Mr Alom and a female colleague, she received an anonymous abusive email which was found to amount to harassment. Although the sender couldn’t be confirmed after searching his computer, the FCA concluded Mr Alom was responsible based on the content and context. After further incidents and a disciplinary process, he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim. The EAT held that procedural flaws in the surrounding circumstances don’t necessarily make a dismissal unfair if the key disciplinary allegations are handled fairly. In response to Mr Alom’s specific arguments:

• Lack of interview transcripts: He wasn’t given transcripts of the female colleague’s investigative interviews. The EAT found that although fairness requires the employee to be provided with sufficient information to respond to allegations, that didn’t necessarily mean having full transcripts. The disciplinary charges focused on two emails he had sent, and the transcripts weren’t provided to the decision-maker either.
• Use of an HR “script”: The decision-maker used a script prepared by HR. The EAT concluded that while some parts suggested views for the manager to adopt, the script invited Mr Alom’s responses without presuming the outcome. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the manager reached his own decision after considering Mr Alom’s representations.
• Computer search and privacy: Mr Alom argued that searching his computer breached his privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The EAT noted the FCA didn’t rely on the search to support the disciplinary charges or dismissal. Even if the search was disproportionate, it didn’t render the dismissal unfair.

Practical point:

If scripts are used in disciplinary hearings, these should avoid suggesting conclusions for the decision-maker to adopt. 

The decision-maker should generally be given the same evidence as the employee and shouldn’t rely on material that’s withheld from them.

Alom v The Financial Conduct Authority 

5. Sex discrimination, constructive dismissal and whistleblowing

Sainsbury’s manager awarded £60,000 in compensation and costs

This case underscores the financial and reputational risks employers face when failing to address workplace misconduct and whistleblowing concerns.

Ms Oziel, a manager at Sainsbury’s, was repeatedly abused by a colleague, A, who resented being instructed. He swore at her in front of others, calling her a “f***g b**ch”. The store manager took no action. The following year, A threatened to buy an imitation gun to intimidate her and was later caught on CCTV making offensive remarks and blocking her exit from a small office. He only left when she activated her body cam, then returned with another colleague and continued swearing at Ms Oziel.

Despite reporting both incidents, Ms Oziel’s concerns were dismissed by the store manager, who laughed and called them overreactions. A then filed a grievance against Ms Oziel. Her written statement about A’s threat was disregarded, and the grievance outcome suggested she was partly to blame for A’s behaviour. Ms Oziel raised a grievance, received no response, and resigned four days later. 

The Tribunal upheld her claims finding: 

• Direct sex discrimination: A’s comments were based on Ms Oziel’s sex and constituted less favourable treatment.
• Whistleblowing: Her report about the gun threat was a protected disclosure about a potential crime and was in the public interest.  Sainsbury’s failure to address Ms Oziel’s complaints, take action against A and blame her for A’s behaviour, amounted to detriment due to whistleblowing.
• Constructive unfair dismissal: The mishandling of her complaints, combined with discrimination and whistleblowing failures, amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.

Ms Oziel was awarded nearly £60,000 in compensation and injury to feelings. Notably, she also received £2,000 in aggravated damages, as well as her costs, reflecting the Tribunal’s disapproval of Sainsbury’s attempt to blame her for A’s behaviour.

Practical point: 

As this is a first instance decision, it isn’t binding on other Tribunals.

In order to manage risks, employers should:

• Signpost workplace behaviour policies and provide training to managers on how to respond to any incidents
• Take employees seriously when they raise concerns and investigate promptly. Involve HR and take legal advice at an early stage
• Recognise that management errors do happen and that reflecting on how things can be handled better can prevent a mistake being repeated.

Oziel v Sainsbury’s