Welcome to our round-up of people and workplace updates, hand-picked to help HR teams stay informed about legislative developments.

Catch up on:

Keep Britain Working: Government update on the new workplace health system

On 23 September 2026, the government published Sir Charlie Mayfield’s update on the post-review work of Keep Britain Working. HR leaders should note the direction of travel towards clearer employer expectations, better data and a system designed to embed inclusion by default.

What was the report about

Keep Britain Working (KBW) was an independent report led by Sir Charlie Mayfield published on 5 November 2025. It considered why increasing numbers of people are leaving work due to ill health and how employers can better support them to remain in or return to work. It concluded that employers should play a greater role in preventing ill health and supporting employees with health conditions and disabilities. The review proposed a new Healthy Working Standard and Workplace Health Provision, to be developed through a three-year pilot involving 60 employers. It also recommended reforms to workplace health support and incentives to reduce economic inactivity and improve workforce participation.

What’s happened since?

Following the final report, KBW has worked with participating employers to design a workplace health system. The aim is to deliver more inclusive workplaces, strengthen health support and improve data on health, absence, retention and disability participation, moving away from the status quo of reliance on self-declaration and towards a more proactive approach to identifying and addressing barriers.

Standards and expectations

To help implement the report, KBW and the British Standards Institution convened an expert panel to draft an employer‑facing standard. While content is not final, the Government is testing a potential set of commitments with participating employers, including early and responsive engagement on health, prompt adjustments, proactive contact during sickness absence, and practical planning to help employees remain in or return to work.

Shared responsibility is a central theme of KBW, with a focus on both employers supporting employees’ return to work and employees engaging constructively in that process. Measures being tested include encouraging employees to raise concerns about health or work early and to report absences from day one, and no later than day three.

Employee protections and data

KBW stresses that employees should not be expected to disclose unnecessary personal information, engage where doing so would be detrimental to their health, or assume responsibility for matters within the employer’s control. Employers would measure participation and retention annually. KBW also proposes a voluntary, employee‑facing work and health toolkit to surface barriers early and support employee choice about seeking help. Responses would be private by default, with only aggregated insights shared with employers.

What changes now?

The system will be developed further, with a phased implementation plan to be prepared ahead of the spending review planned for summer 2027.

Why it matters

The update signals a move towards consistent, evidence‑driven practice on workplace health and inclusion, underpinned by clear expectations, safeguards for employee privacy and regular measurement of outcomes.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Map current onboarding, absence and adjustment processes against the draft commitments.
  • Establish rapid triage for health-related issues and track response times.
  • Prepare to measure participation and retention annually and improve data quality.
  • Engage with the forthcoming employee toolkit and communicate voluntary participation.

Return to top.

Tribunal time limit extended to six months

From 1 October 2026, the limitation period for tribunal claims in Great Britain doubled from three to six months. People teams should take note of the implications for record-keeping and evidence preservation.

What happened?

The limitation period for tribunal claims has been extended from three to six months, taking effect from 1 October 2026.

The change applies to all tribunal claims, including unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract claims, as well as a range of less common claims, including part-time worker, fixed-term employee, and blacklisting claims.

The Acas process

Claimants must still notify Acas before issuing most tribunal claims as part of the early conciliation process, which can last up to 12 weeks, further extending the period between the underlying events and the start of tribunal proceedings.

Transitional rules

The six-month limit applies only where the relevant date falls on or after 1 October 2026. Claims based on an earlier relevant date remain subject to the previous three-month limit. Depending on the type of claim, the relevant date is either the effective date of termination or the date of the act, conduct or failure complained of, or, in the case of a continuing course of conduct, the last act or failure in a series.

Why it matters

Longer time limits will mean more claims and different internal timelines, as well as a need to preserve evidence for a longer period. When considered alongside the continuing delays in tribunals, there will be an even longer period between an issue arising and resolution.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Review document retention and record-keeping processes to ensure relevant evidence remains available for longer.
  • Remind managers of the importance of maintaining clear and contemporaneous records of workplace decisions and discussions.
  • Ensure up-to-date contact details are retained for key potential witnesses, including those who may have left the organisation by the time a claim is brought.
  • Factor longer litigation timeframes into risk assessments.

Return to top.

EAT reminds tribunals to consider mitigation when assessing interaction between awards and benefits

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision clarifies how tribunals should handle benefits interactions at remedy, highlighting that compensation must reflect actual loss.

What happened?

Mr Nunns was employed as Head Chef by SBH Windermere Limited. He resigned in 2022 and brought claims alleging sexual harassment and unauthorised deductions from wages.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal upheld several harassment complaints against SBH Windermere Limited, awarding Mr Nunns £35,656. Two days after the remedy judgment, Mr Nunns told the tribunal that paying the award would push his savings above the Universal Credit threshold, causing him to lose £1,100 per month in Universal Credit.

In its reconsideration judgment, the tribunal accepted it had not foreseen the knock‑on effect of the award on Universal Credit, referring to the “well‑known £16,000 cap on benefits”, and increased compensation to £43,044.

What the EAT changed

The EAT held that, although the tribunal was entitled to reconsider its compensation award, it had taken too narrow an approach by focusing solely on the claimant’s loss of Universal Credit. The tribunal should instead have undertaken a broader assessment of mitigation, consistent with the principle that compensation must reflect actual loss. This included considering whether the claimant could have reduced his losses by claiming alternative benefits.

While the claimant argued that claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance would have been inappropriate because he was unable to work due to mental ill health, the EAT noted that Employment and Support Allowance appeared, at least on the face of it, to be a potentially relevant alternative. The case was therefore remitted for reconsideration of that issue.

Why it matters

The decision reinforces the principle that compensation should reflect a claimant’s actual loss. When assessing future losses, tribunals should consider not only the impact of a compensation award on benefit entitlement, but also whether the claimant has taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • The onus to prove that a claimant has not mitigated is on the respondent, and so, in any claim situation ensure you are keeping a note of roles the claimant could have applied to.

Return to top.

Government research highlights barriers to workplace reasonable adjustments

The Office for Equality and Opportunity has published research into how effectively disabled employees can access reasonable adjustments at work. The findings emphasise the importance of having clear and effective processes for considering, implementing and reviewing reasonable adjustments.

What happened?

On 11 September 2026, the Government released findings on the operation of the reasonable adjustments duty in England, Scotland and Wales. Commissioned by the Disability Unit, the study draws on interviews with Acas conciliators, employment judges, trade unions, and analysis of tribunal judgments. The findings informed the Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee report, Employment Support for disabled people: Disability at Work.

What the law says

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments to remove or reduce a substantial disadvantage linked to disability. As the legislation gives no fixed definition of “reasonable”, the boundaries of the duty can be unclear, leaving both employers and employees unsure of its extent.

What the research says

The researchers acknowledged the difficulty in analysing the reasonable adjustment process given the “limited and patchy evidence-base”. The data which is available indicates most employees who request adjustments receive all or some, with roughly a third receiving all requested adjustments and another third receiving some. The report identifies five main barriers to access.

  • Delays, which occur across all three stages of the process, particularly during implementation where external advice, funding and equipment may be required.
  • Knowledge gaps, among both employers and employees, about the scope of the duty, with ambiguity over what “reasonable” entails and how it should be applied in practice.
  • Fear of negative consequences; employees worry about stigma and discrimination in disclosing a disability, while employers fear reputational risk and legal costs if they make the ‘wrong’ decision.
  • Unclear internal processes, with lack of manager training and inability to think creatively about adjustments noted as being key impediments to progress.
  • Cost and funding concerns, particularly where employers rely on Access to Work support, can present challenges in implementation.

The report concludes that the reasonable adjustment process itself generally functions as intended. The priority should be improved guidance to bridge the gap between legal duties and workable practice.

Why it matters

HR should ensure clear procedures are in place, managers understand their responsibilities, and adjustment requests are dealt with promptly. Doing so can reduce risk and support better outcomes.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Map and publish a clear adjustments route map, with named contacts and indicative timelines.
  • Train managers on reasonable adjustments, with a focus on what “reasonable” looks like in role-specific contexts.
  • Triage requests early, separating simple requests from complex cases, and record decisions and rationales.
  • Engage with Access to Work promptly and plan around current processing times.
  • Challenge cost assumptions; document low- or no-cost options and pilot time-limited trials.
  • Protect confidentiality and foster a disclosure-positive culture with clear anti-stigma messaging.
  • Monitor implementation and outcomes; audit data to identify bottlenecks and adjust guidance.

Return to top.

Details of new ‘day one’ right to bereavement leave confirmed

The Government has issued its response to the consultation on a new statutory right to bereavement leave. People teams will need to prepare in advance of its expected commencement in April 2027.

What happened?

1,900 responses were received on the practical design of a new day one entitlement to unpaid bereavement leave. The Government has now confirmed the scope, eligibility, duration, notice and evidential framework. Guidance for employers and employees will follow.

How this fits with current rights

Current legislation provides a statutory entitlement of up to two weeks Parental Bereavement Leave to parents who lose a child under 18 or experience a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy, provided they meet the eligibility criteria. The new entitlement is broader in who it covers and extends to pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, but it will be unpaid.

Who will be eligible?

The Government has opted for a defined list of qualifying relationships. Eligibility will extend to the loss of immediate family members, namely spouses, civil partners, partners in a committed long-term relationship, parents, adult children and siblings (including biological, adopted, step and half). It will also recognise equivalent parental relationships for individuals brought up in kinship care or by foster carers.

For pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, entitlement will cover the person who was pregnant, the other biological parent, the spouse, civil partner, partner in a committed long-term relationship, an intended co-parent, and intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement. All forms of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks will be covered, including miscarriage (such as ectopic, molar and chemical pregnancies), as well as all terminations and IVF embryo transfer loss.

How much leave?

Employees will be able to take up to two weeks’ leave, prorated to their working pattern. Leave can be taken discontinuously in one day units within 56 weeks of the bereavement or from when the employee learned of it.

Notice and evidence requirements

Notice may be given as soon as reasonably practicable and any form of notice is acceptable; within the first eight weeks it can be given on the same day; after that one week’s notice is required. There will be no evidence requirements.

What’s next?

The right will be implemented by secondary legislation, with measures expected to come into force in April 2027. Government guidance for employers and employees will be published.

Why it matters?

The changes create a consistent baseline right from day one, covering a wider range of relationships and pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, without any requirement for employees to provide evidence of the bereavement or loss.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Audit and update bereavement and pregnancy loss policies to reflect eligibility, unpaid status and notice rules.
  • Build processes to allow single-day, discontinuous leave within 56 weeks.
  • Ensure processes are built to accommodate both the existing Parental Bereavement Leave regime and the new statutory bereavement leave entitlement.
  • Train managers on sensitive handling and scope of eligible relationships.
  • Plan payroll configuration for unpaid leave and ensure clear communication to staff.
  • Monitor Government guidance ahead of measures coming into force in April 2027.

Return to top.

EAT sounds warning on AI use

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision has demonstrated the expectations for the use of AI in submissions. People teams should note the procedural lessons and the risks of overly broad or non-compliant filings.

What happened?

The claimant, Mr Hancox, brought a series of claims against his former employer, the National Farmers Union, including for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

What the tribunal decided

At first instance, the tribunal struck out the claims, finding that the claimant had engaged in scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious conduct by conducting a LinkedIn campaign that was said to make a fair hearing impossible. It did so under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rule 38, which permits strike-out but requires a reasonable opportunity to make representations.

What the EAT decided

The appeal followed a convoluted path, including excessive correspondence, repeated applications and a 300-page, approximately 132,000-word skeleton argument generated using ChatGPT, which the claimant ultimately did not rely on. The EAT allowed the appeal to the extent of sending one ground to a full hearing. It was reasonably arguable that the claimant had not received a fair opportunity to respond to strike-out.

The EAT took the opportunity to highlight that litigants before the EAT, whether represented or not, must comply with the EAT’s Rules and Practice Direction, stressing that the requirements for skeleton arguments must be “rigorously observed” and that, where they are not, submissions may be rejected or other sanctions imposed.

The EAT also gave general guidance on the use of AI when creating documents for submission. It held that anyone using generative AI remains personally responsible for the documents produced and must ensure they have been appropriately checked, comply with procedural rules, are factually and legally accurate, and present clear and relevant arguments without unnecessary repetition. Responsibility for checking AI-generated material cannot be shifted to the opposing party.

Why it matters

The judgment highlights that all parties, including litigants in person, remain personally responsible for AI-assisted documents. Lengthy or non-compliant filings risk rejection, curtailed submissions and potential sanctions.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Prepare People teams and managers to deal with lengthy and complex employee correspondence efficiently and consistently.
  • Ensure grievance procedures set clear expectations on how issues should be raised, helping to keep complaints focused and manageable.
  • Meet with employees who have raised a grievance. Ask them to explain in their own words what the issues are and what they would like by way of resolution.
  • Establish clear oversight of AI use in employment processes, particularly where outputs may inform investigations, workplace procedures or legal documentation.

Return to top.

Union rights notice delayed to January 2027

The Government has postponed the new duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union until January 2027. It has also issued its response to last year’s consultation, confirming a tightly prescribed approach to what employers must say and how they must say it.

What happened?

The duty, which requires employers to provide workers with a written statement informing them of their right to join a trade union, originally due to come into force on 30 October 2026, has been pushed back to January 2027.

Alongside the delay, the Government published its consultation response, setting out the detail of the standardised statement employers will be required to use and how it must be delivered to new and existing workers.

What will the statement look like?

The regulations prescribe a standardised statement. Employers will not be able to amend it, except to insert specific workplace information. The statement will include a brief explanation of union functions, a list of and information on any recognised trade unions and/or statutory access agreements where applicable, and a summary of statutory rights. Employers must also either include a link to the Certification Officer’s list of trade unions within the statement or provide a copy of that list alongside it.

How and when to deliver it?

For new workers, the statement must be provided directly at the same time as the written statement of employment particulars. For existing workers, employers may deliver it through direct or indirect methods.

If delivered directly, the communication must be repeated annually by 5 April. Where indirect methods are used, the statement must remain continuously and reasonably available, with an annual reminder telling workers where to find it. If the location of the statement changes, employers must inform workers directly. Where there is a change to the identity of recognised unions or statutory access agreements, the statement must be reissued within one month of the change.

Why it matters

The delay gives employers more time to prepare, but the prescriptive nature of the statement and the ongoing maintenance duties mean People, legal and internal communications teams will need to align now. Systems must ensure the statement is issued at the required times, annual reminders are sent, updates are tracked, and records are maintained to demonstrate compliance.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Map delivery channels for new starters so the statement issues alongside particulars.
  • Decide on direct or indirect delivery for existing staff and document your rationale.
  • Set annual reminder processes and ensure the statement is continuously available if using indirect methods. Create a change-control process to reissue within one month when recognised unions or access agreements change.
  • Maintain records of publication, reminders, and any updates to the Certification Officer’s list.

Return to top.

BSI and ISO publish new global standard on menstruation and menopause at work

A new global benchmark for supporting menstrual and menopausal health at work has arrived. BS ISO 45010, developed by the British Standards Institution in collaboration with the International Organization for Standardization and announced on 7 September 2026, provides practical guidance for employers across England, Scotland and Wales.

What has been published?

BS ISO 45010, Menstruation and menopause in the workplace, builds on a British standard released in 2023. It provides recommendations on workplace culture, policies and procedures, manager awareness and training, workplace design, and measures that may help employees manage symptoms. It is designed to be applied flexibly and to complement existing health, wellbeing and inclusion initiatives.

Key new features

The standard includes a clause on disclosure and privacy, setting out guidance on what information should be shared, how it should be shared and with whom. It also contains a template workplace charter for supporting menstrual and menopausal health at work which employers can use. There is also specific guidance for SMEs to help scale measures proportionately.

How it fits with UK developments

It is expected that from spring 2027 regulations issued under the Employment Rights Act 2025 will become mandatory, requiring employers with 250 employees or more to publish equality action plans showing what steps they are taking in relation to prescribed matters related to gender equality, including specifically to support employees going through menopause. BS ISO 45010 provides a framework that employers can use to structure those steps.

Why this matters for HR

The standard brings together recognised good practice into a coherent set of recommendations. By addressing workplace culture, design and process, it helps HR align policies with day-to-day working realities.

Getting started

HR teams can map existing policies and practices against BS ISO 45010, identify gaps, and engage with stakeholders to agree priorities. The template workplace charter offers a starting point for communication and expectation-setting.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Review current policies, training and workplace design against BS ISO 45010 and identify gaps.
  • Adopt or adapt the template workplace charter and plan an internal launch.
  • Update manager training to cover symptoms, signposting and handling conversations privately and appropriately.
  • Ensure privacy guidance is reflected in data handling, workplace conversations and record-keeping practices.
  • Calibrate adjustments to role requirements and operational needs, with SME-tailored approaches where appropriate.
  • For employers with 250+ employees, align plans with the anticipated equality action plan requirements for 2027.

Return to top.

Flexible Working: Government confirms new mandatory process and “reasonableness” test from autumn 2027

The Government has set out how employers must handle statutory flexible working requests and confirmed when the new reasonableness standard will bite. HR teams have just over a year to ensure their policies and managers are ready for a more structured decision-making process.

What happened?

The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has published its response to the Make Work Pay consultation on improving access to flexible working. Two reforms will follow, both intended to take effect in autumn 2027.

What the regulations will require

From autumn 2027, employers must take prescribed steps before rejecting a statutory flexible working request. A meeting will be mandatory. It must genuinely explore feasibility, address challenges where possible and, if the arrangement sought is not viable, identify and discuss suitable alternatives.

The meeting cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise to communicate a refusal decision already made and must occur within the two-month decision period following a request. Employers must give fair and reasonable notice and inform the employee of the meeting’s purpose in advance. Employers must also notify the employee in writing of both the outcome of the meeting and the final decision on the request; a single communication may cover both.

What the Employment Rights Act 2025 will change

Also from autumn 2027, the reasonableness test introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 will be commenced. A statutory request may only be refused where it is reasonable to do so. Acas has promised guidance on this test before the end of 2026.

What has been dropped?

Three consultation proposals will not proceed: a requirement for a decision maker with authority to attend the meeting; a duty to ask whether the request should be treated as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010; and a fixed notice period for the meeting. The latter was rejected in favour of a plan to require ‘fair and reasonable’ notice. There will be no statutory right of appeal and no right to be accompanied, though both remain good practice. Trial periods, review points and temporary arrangements are encouraged but will not be mandated.

Acas’s position

Acas will consult on a revised Code of Practice on requests for flexible working, which will address the new consultation requirements and reasonableness test. The updated Code will take effect alongside the legislative reforms in autumn 2027.

Why it matters

Employers must clearly consider alternatives and, where they wish to refuse a request, be able to demonstrate that they have engaged in genuine consultation and have a reasoned basis for doing so. Documentation and manager capability will be critical.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Compare current processes against the meeting and notification requirements.
  • Train managers on conducting good-faith feasibility discussions and exploring alternatives.
  • Refresh templates to capture rationale, alternatives considered and written outcomes.
  • Plan for two-month decision timetables and fair notice of meetings.
  • Adopt appeals and the option to be accompanied as good practice, even if not mandatory.
  • Consider developing a framework for trial periods and review points.
  • Monitor Acas guidance in 2026 and the revised Code in 2027 and schedule policy updates accordingly.

Return to top.

Individual employees can be personally liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments

People teams should note a significant development on who can be sued for failures to make reasonable adjustments. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision confirms that individual employees and agents can face personal liability where adjustments are not made.

What happened?

Ms Merriman was engaged via the agency 1st Staff to tutor a person with special needs. After developing a disability that made in-person attendance difficult, she asked to switch to online teaching. When this was not implemented, she brought a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal allowed the claim to proceed against 1st Staff but struck out claims against four individuals who worked for 1st Staff on the basis that only an employer can be liable for such a claim. The tribunal’s position was that the reasonable adjustments duty attaches to the employer alone. On that view, claims against individual members of staff could not proceed and were struck out at a preliminary stage.

What the EAT changed

The EAT held that the ET was wrong to strike out the claims against the individual respondents. It found that, although the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, organisations act through employees. As a result, provisions providing for liability of employees were engaged where they contribute to the relevant breach.

The case has therefore been remitted to the tribunal with the claims against the four individuals reinstated.

Why it matters

The decision increases the potential exposure of individual employees involved in reasonable adjustment decisions. People professionals should therefore expect greater scrutiny of decision-makers’ personal roles in adjustment processes and should make those decision makers aware.

Practical takeaways for HR

  • Identify who is responsible for handling adjustments and ensure decisions are recorded.
  • Preserve and review contemporaneous evidence promptly, including any recordings or transcripts.
  • Ensure managers and recruiters understand the duty to make reasonable adjustments and know when matters should be escalated.
  • Keep clear, dated records of requests, assessments and outcomes.
  • Engage with requests promptly and consider alternatives where initial proposals are not practicable.
  • Review policies and procedures to ensure reasonable steps to prevent discriminatory conduct are in place and can be evidenced.
  • Ensure responsibilities are clearly allocated where agents or contractors are involved in placements.
  • Provide clear reasons where requests are rejected and keep arrangements under review where circumstances change.

Return to top.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice on which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.