Tuesday, 29 April 2026

April is always a busy month for employment law. New statutory rates come into force, national minimum wage increases take effect, and the caseload from tribunals keeps building. This month also brings some important reminders about appeals, disciplinary processes, and a significant development on the horizon for third-party harassment. There is a lot to stay on top of.

Here are the key employment law and HR developments for April, excluding the ERA 2025 which is reported on each month separately.

New statutory rates from 6 April 2026

Most annual rate changes take effect on 6 April, aligning with the start of the new tax year. From that date, the following rates now apply:

• Statutory maternity pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory paternity pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory shared parental pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory adoption pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory parental bereavement pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory neonatal care leave pay: £194.32 per week
• Statutory sick pay: £123.25 per week
• Statutory guarantee pay: £41.00 per day
• Statutory redundancy pay: £751.00
• Maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal: £123,543

The average gross weekly earnings threshold for qualifying for family leave payments has also increased, from £125.00 to £129.00 per week.

One important note on the compensatory award cap: under changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, this cap will be removed entirely from January 2027. For now, the £123,543 figure applies to all dismissals from 6 April 2026 until that change comes into force.

National minimum wage: new rates from 1 April 2026

The national minimum wage increased from 1 April 2026. The new rates are:

• Aged 21 and above: £12.71 per hour
• Aged 18–20: £10.85 per hour
• Under 18 above compulsory school leaving age: £8.00 per hour
• Apprentices under 19: £8.00 per hour
• Apprentices aged 19+ in their first year: £8.00 per hour

Getting this wrong is costly in more than one way. The government's latest "name and shame" list of non-compliant employers — published last month — included well-known names such as Costa, Bupa and Hovis. Alongside the reputational damage, fines can reach up to 200% of the value of the underpayment.

The most common cause of underpayment is failing to apply the annual increase, or failing to notice that an employee has moved into an older age bracket. Now is a good time to check your payroll.

When is a right of appeal required?

Offering an appeal is not optional in most cases. It is a fundamental part of a fair dismissal process.

Under s98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, fairness is judged by looking at the process as a whole. In practice, failing to offer — or properly conduct — an appeal will usually render a dismissal unfair. The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures reinforces this, stating that employers should allow employees to appeal against any formal decision. Failure to follow the Code can result in a compensation uplift of up to 25%.

That said, there are narrow exceptions. The Acas Code formally applies to misconduct and performance dismissals. It does not apply to redundancy, and has been held not to apply to ill-health dismissals (Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd). It will not usually apply to "some other substantial reason" (SOSR) dismissals unless there is a disciplinary element (Phoenix House v Stockman).

Even where the Code does not technically apply, however, offering an appeal will still generally be required for overall fairness. Case law suggests the bar for departing from this is high. Only where an appeal would be "truly pointless" — for example, in Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd, where there had been an irretrievable breakdown in trust between a company's founder and leadership — will an omission be justified.

But employers should be cautious. In Afzal v East London Pizza Ltd, an SOSR dismissal was found unfair precisely because no appeal was offered. Even where an employer believes dismissal is unavoidable, an appeal can still provide the employee with the opportunity to produce evidence the employer has not considered.

The practical takeaway: treat the right of appeal as essential. Getting the judgment wrong that it is not required is likely to be expensive.

Gross misconduct dismissals: lessons from Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue

This recent employment tribunal decision is a useful case study in what not to do when dismissing for gross misconduct.

Mr Langton, an experienced firefighter, was summarily dismissed after making a comment about the appearance of a woman he had helped rescue. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — not because the comment was acceptable, but because of how the employer handled the process.

The employer made several significant errors:

• Relying on an expired warning. The employer took account of a "Note for File" that was five years old. Under its own policy, this should have been disregarded after six months.
• Mischaracterising performance documents as misconduct. The employer tried to use personal development plans as evidence of prior misconduct. One of those PDPs actually rated Mr Langton as a high performer.
• Conflating competence issues with conduct. These are different things, and treating them interchangeably undermined the employer's case.

There was a silver lining. Despite finding the dismissal unfair, the tribunal accepted that the misogynistic comment alone — if that had been the only basis for dismissal — would have fallen within the band of reasonable responses. The employer's thorough investigation into that specific incident counted in their favour. As a result, the tribunal reduced Mr Langton's compensation by 65% to reflect his contributory fault.

The lesson is a familiar one: a sound investigation into the right allegations, and a fair process that does not try to mould the evidence, is what makes a misconduct dismissal defensible.

Holiday accrual during sick leave: the rules explained

In most cases, employees continue to accrue statutory holiday entitlement while on sick leave, even during extended absence. But the rules differ depending on the type of worker.

For employees with regular hours and year-round contracts:

• Holiday accrues throughout sickness absence.
• If the employee cannot take holiday because they are sick, they can carry over up to four weeks' leave into the next leave year.
• That carried-over leave must be taken within 18 months of the end of the leave year in which it accrued.
• The right to carry over applies to the four weeks under Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations — not to the additional 1.6 weeks under Regulation 13A, unless the employer allows this contractually.

For part-year and irregular hours workers (Regulation 15B WTR):

Holiday entitlement for these workers is calculated as a percentage of hours actually worked. Where they are on sick leave, they continue to accrue leave based on 12.07% of their average hours worked in the 52 weeks prior to the absence (excluding any weeks of sick leave or statutory leave from that calculation). Carried-over leave follows the same 18-month rule. There is no differentiation into 4 weeks and the additional 1.6 weeks like there is for other workers.

Employers should make sure their holiday policies clearly reflect these different rules. Inconsistency between the policy and the legal position is a common source of disputes that are entirely avoidable.

The right to be accompanied: managing companions well

Employees do not have a free choice of companion. Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 limits the statutory right to a work colleague or a trade union official. Where the chosen companion falls within those categories, the employee has an absolute right to that person — as confirmed in Toal and Hughes v GB Oils. Employers cannot insist on an alternative simply because they dislike the choice.

That said, the picture is more nuanced than it might appear:

• Disabled employees may be entitled to bring a friend or family member as a reasonable adjustment. In Crew and Mason v Three Milestone Education Ltd, refusing to allow a disabled employee's mother to attend a disciplinary hearing was both a failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment.
• Policies and contracts may widen eligibility, sometimes permitting partners, legal representatives or support workers.
• Companions have a defined role — they can present the employee's case, respond to views expressed and confer privately. They are not entitled to answer questions on the employee's behalf unless permitted. In Aslam v Sainsbury's Supermarkets, barring a representative who was simply "fighting the employee's corner" was held to be unfair.

Employees can also postpone a hearing by up to five working days if their companion cannot attend.

Getting this wrong can result in compensation of up to two weeks' pay per breach, automatic unfair dismissal if an employee is dismissed for exercising the right, and wider fairness challenges to any disciplinary outcome.

Handled well, the right to be accompanied supports the process. Handled rigidly, it creates legal risk.

Third-party harassment: 'all reasonable steps' is about to become a front-line issue

From October 2025, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will introduce employer liability for harassment committed by third parties — visitors, clients, customers and suppliers. This is a significant development.

The new provisions insert employer liability into s40 of the Equality Act 2010. An employer will be liable where a third party harasses one of their employees in the course of their employment, and the employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it.

There is an important structural difference from the existing harassment regime. Currently, "all reasonable steps" operates as a defence — the employer can raise it to defeat an otherwise successful claim. For third-party harassment, it forms part of the offence itself. The burden will be on the employee to show that the employer failed to take all reasonable steps, rather than on the employer to prove that they did take them. That sounds easier for employers, but the practical challenges around gathering evidence — particularly where third parties are involved and commercial sensitivities exist — should not be underestimated.

What employers should be doing now:

• Carry out a full risk assessment of third-party harassment risk in your workplace. Review it regularly.
• Take the steps identified by the risk assessment to reduce that risk — notices, protocols, buddy systems, clear reporting lines.
• Where a potential step is considered but judged unreasonable, document that decision and the reasons for it.
• Think carefully about the scope of "in the course of employment" for your business. This can extend beyond the physical workplace to client social events and similar situations.
• Do not wait until October. The positive duty to prevent sexual harassment — which already applies to third-party harassment — has been in place since October 2024. Employers' obligations in this area are not new, and neither should their reasonable steps be.

Whistleblowing: motive is not the same as public interest belief

Whistleblower protection is frequently misunderstood. Protection applies where an employee makes a qualifying protected disclosure — and whether that protection applies turns on the employee's belief, not their motive.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal made this clear in Bibescu v Clare Jenner t/a Jenners. Ms Bibescu, an accountant, disclosed that an external contractor reviewing her work appeared to be a disqualified director still registered at Companies House, and was not a member of a professional accounting body. She was dismissed shortly afterwards and claimed whistleblowing protection.

The tribunal initially rejected her claim on the basis that her motive was to discredit the contractor, not to act in the public interest. The EAT found that was the wrong approach. The correct question was whether Ms Bibescu herself believed the disclosures were in the public interest — and whether that belief was reasonable. A disclosure can be in the public interest even where the person making it has personal motivations.

The EAT also found that the tribunal had assessed whether the alleged wrongdoing had actually occurred, rather than asking whether Ms Bibescu reasonably believed it showed one of the listed failures under s43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That was a material error of law.

For HR: an employee's motive for blowing the whistle does not have to be altruistic. Self-interest and a genuine public interest belief can coexist. Assessing whether a disclosure is protected requires looking at the employee's belief — not judging the purity of their intentions.

Bad faith allegations: what protection is lost, and when

When an employee makes an allegation that appears to have been fabricated, it is natural to want to act firmly. But doing so without care can expose the organisation to claims for victimisation, detriment, or automatic unfair dismissal.

The protection available under the Equality Act 2010 for protected acts — such as raising a discrimination complaint — applies even where the allegation is mistaken. It only falls away where the allegation is made in bad faith.

The distinction matters. In Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, a trainee doctor raised a discrimination allegation during performance proceedings. The tribunal initially found the complaint was not protected because it appeared to be motivated by a desire to delay assessment. The EAT disagreed. The question was whether the allegation was made honestly — not why it was made. As the employee genuinely believed the comments had been made, the claim was protected.

Whistleblowing claims follow a slightly different framework. The employee must hold a reasonable belief that they are disclosing wrongdoing in the public interest. Allegations based on information the employee knows to be false are unlikely to meet that threshold. Even where protection applies, bad faith at the remedy stage can reduce compensation by up to 25%.

Where there is strong evidence of deliberate fabrication, disciplinary action can be justified. In Toure v Ken Wilkins Print Ltd, an employee who made a knowingly false allegation of racial abuse and tried to leverage it for personal gain was fairly dismissed.

The message for HR: distinguish carefully between weak, mistaken and dishonest complaints. Only the last removes statutory protection. Proving it requires robust evidence and a fair process.

And finally… vaping, dismissal and the importance of clear policies

Sometimes a tribunal case reads like a school report. Billings v Nestle UK is one of those.

A fire alarm went off at a factory, requiring a full evacuation. An investigation concluded that someone had been vaping in the toilets. The employer identified that someone as Mr Billings and dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair, for three reasons.

• First, the disciplinary officer was more focused on Mr Billings's failure to apologise than on the vaping itself. He acknowledged that if Mr Billings had admitted the conduct, he would not have been dismissed. The tribunal was clear: failing to apologise is not misconduct.
• Second, this was a single isolated act in an otherwise unblemished career. Summary dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
• Third, the employer had no policy specifically stating that vaping would be treated as gross misconduct.

The lessons are straightforward. If vaping at work is a serious issue in your workplace, say so clearly in your policies. Length of service and a clean disciplinary record matter when considering whether summary dismissal is proportionate. And disciplinary officers should focus on the allegations in front of them — not on irrelevant factors like whether the employee has shown sufficient remorse.

Final thoughts

April's developments reinforce a theme that runs through most of this area of law: the detail matters. Whether it is applying the right pay rate, structuring a fair appeal, handling a companion request, or preparing for the extension of third-party harassment liability in October, getting the foundations right protects both the organisation and the people in it.

If any of these issues are live in your business, it is always worth taking advice early. It is almost always cheaper than dealing with the consequences of getting it wrong.