June’s bulletin covers single-sex spaces, protected conversations, flexible working refusals, mileage rate changes, post-employment victimisation, equal value claims and the arrival of the Fair Work Agency.

There is also a Government consultation on NDAs that HR teams should not ignore and a new workplace buzz phrase that tells you rather more about burnout than about bathroom habits.

Single-sex spaces: the EHRC has updated its Code — but employers are still waiting

The Supreme Court has ruled. The EHRC has updated its Code of Practice. And yet, if you are an HR professional trying to navigate single-sex spaces in the workplace, you are still largely on your own.

Last month, the Government laid the EHRC’s revised draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions, and Organisations before Parliament. It replaces the 2011 Code and incorporates the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, confirming that “sex”, “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Act.

So what does this mean for employers?

In short: not as much as you might hope. The draft Code covers service providers, not employers. Workplace single-sex facilities are governed separately, under different parts of the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

The EHRC has confirmed it will update its guidance for employers “in due course”, but has refused to commit to a timeframe.

First-instance tribunal decisions are beginning to emerge. In Hutchinson and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, a policy permitting transitioning employees to use changing rooms in line with their self-declared gender identity, and a failure to pause that access following a complaint, amounted to harassment related to both sex and gender reassignment, and indirect sex discrimination.

The tribunal found that requiring women to share communal changing facilities with a person of the opposite biological sex placed women at a particular disadvantage and the Trust failed to justify its approach.

Implied terms: the distinction between fact and law

Employment contracts are never the whole story. Terms implied by fact and terms implied by law both supplement the written agreement, but they arise differently and carry different levels of flexibility. Understanding the distinction matters.

Terms implied by fact are those necessary to give the contract business efficacy, or so obvious that they go without saying. What the parties must have intended. The courts apply the “business efficacy” and “officious bystander” tests.

The threshold is deliberately high and a term will not be implied simply because it appears reasonable. It must be necessary.

Terms implied by law arise automatically as a necessary incident of the employment relationship or by statute. They apply regardless of the parties’ intentions and cannot be excluded by agreement.

The key distinction for HR: terms implied by fact are contract-specific and context-dependent. Terms implied by law are universal and non-negotiable. Attempting to exclude or ignore them is unlikely to be effective and may increase legal risk.

Protected conversations under section 111A ERA 1996: two EAT decisions clarify the limits

Pre-termination negotiations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allow employers to have candid settlement discussions without those conversations being used against them in ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings.

Two recent EAT decisions clarify the boundaries of that protection in ways that matter for HR practice.

In Gallagher v McKinnon Auto and Tyres, the EAT found that a meeting called under a misleading description, a 48-hour decision window and an indication that redundancy would follow if the offer was rejected did not, collectively, amount to improper behaviour sufficient to remove section 111A protection.

In Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd, the EAT confirmed that section 111A applies only to ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings. Where other claims are pursued, the same evidence may be admissible in those proceedings.

Flexible working refusals: statutory compliance is a floor, not a ceiling

The right to request flexible working is a day-one right. It confers no entitlement to have a request granted. Enforcement under the flexible working regime is narrow, with claims limited to procedural failures and compensation capped at eight weeks’ pay.

But the more significant legal exposure lies entirely outside the flexible working regime.

Indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 is the primary vehicle. Where a provision, criterion or practice places women at a particular disadvantage, the employer must objectively justify it.

Disability adds another layer. Where a flexible working request has a disability dimension, the employer’s obligations under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 are engaged.

The practical message: run the discrimination and constructive dismissal analysis alongside the statutory flexible working process, not instead of it.

AMAP rate increase: what April’s mileage revision means for HR

After fourteen years at 45p per mile, the Approved Mileage Allowance Payment rate increased to 55p per mile for the first 10,000 business miles, effective April 2026. The rate for additional miles remains unchanged at 25p.

AMAP rates set the ceiling at which employers can reimburse employees for business mileage in privately owned vehicles without triggering income tax or National Insurance liability.

• Retrospective payments. Employers should audit mileage reimbursement records for the current tax year and consider whether top-up payments are required.
• Policy and payroll updates. Expenses policies, payroll systems and employee communications should be updated to reflect the revised rate.
• Above-AMAP reimbursements. Any reimbursement exceeding 55p per mile constitutes a taxable benefit in kind.

Post-employment victimisation: liability does not end at the door

A compensation award exceeding £260,000 in Ong v Aberystwyth University is a timely reminder that discrimination liability does not stop when employment ends.

Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits victimisation: treating someone to a detriment because they have carried out a protected act. Section 108 extends discrimination protection beyond the employment relationship itself, applying where the conduct complained of arises out of and is closely connected to the former employment relationship.

The practical point for HR: once a former employee has carried out a protected act, every subsequent interaction carries legal risk. References, communications and any form of contact with prospective employers should be considered carefully against this framework.

The Fair Work Agency and holiday pay: the enforcement landscape is changing

The Fair Work Agency launched on 7 April 2026, consolidating several existing employment enforcement bodies under one structure. From 2027, it is expected to gain direct enforcement powers over holiday pay, changing the risk calculation for employers significantly.

Holiday pay errors are common. Calculations become complicated quickly where employers have overtime, commission, variable pay, irregular hours workers or part-year workers in their workforce.

Record-keeping obligations are already live. From 6 April 2026, employers must keep adequate annual leave and holiday pay records for at least six years.

Common danger areas include rolled-up assumptions about overtime, inconsistent treatment of casual workers, manual payroll overrides, outdated holiday formulas and disconnects between contracts and actual working patterns.

NDA reform: the Government consults on new safeguards

A Government consultation on proposals to prevent the misuse of non-disclosure agreements in workplace harassment and discrimination cases closes on 8 July 2026, with regulations expected in 2027.

The consultation follows provisions introduced under the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will render void any agreement preventing workers from making allegations or disclosures about harassment or discrimination.

The Government intends to create “excepted agreements” that can still contain confidentiality provisions, but only where specific conditions are met. These include independent legal advice in writing, written consent and a proposed mandatory 14-day cooling-off period.

For HR, these changes could have significant practical consequences. Now is a good time to review how settlement agreements are currently drafted and advised upon.

And finally… loo lurking and what it might actually be telling you

After quiet quitting, coffee badging and mouse jiggling, HR now has a new trending buzz phrase to contend with: “loo lurking”.

AI career tool company Kickresume explains the term as employees hiding in the toilets for a few moments of peace when they feel overwhelmed, anxious or emotionally drained.

HR could ignore it. It could treat it as a productivity issue. Policies on breaks could be reviewed. Bathroom visits could be monitored. Nothing says positive workplace culture quite like a manager with a stopwatch outside the cubicles.

Behind the buzz phrase, there may be a genuine issue of workplace burnout — and that tends to respond better to compassion than to a crackdown.

---