(Excluding the Employment Rights Bill which we reported separately)
March has brought a number of helpful reminders for employers and HR teams. This month’s themes are clear: be precise when making disciplinary decisions, do not overlook the importance of process, and make sure your documents and internal procedures say exactly what you think they do.
Here are some of the key employment law and HR developments from March.
Getting the reason for dismissal right
Where an employee is facing disciplinary action, there is often more than one allegation in play. A recent case is a useful reminder that employers should deal with each allegation separately and be clear about what they are actually relying on as the reason for dismissal.
In Chand v EE Ltd, the employer dismissed the employee for gross misconduct based on four separate incidents, all of which it treated as fraudulent. The tribunal later found there were no reasonable grounds for concluding that any of the incidents amounted to fraud. Even though one of the incidents may still have justified dismissal as a serious breach of policy, that was not the reason the employer had actually relied on at the time.
The key point is that a tribunal will look at the reason the employer genuinely relied on when dismissing, not a different reason that might have been available afterwards.
For employers, the lesson is simple. If there are several allegations, make findings on each one separately. Be clear about whether each allegation is proven, why, and what level of sanction it would justify on its own. That approach gives employers a much stronger chance of defending an unfair dismissal claim.
Collective agreements can become contractual
The written contract is not always the only source of an employer’s obligations. In some cases, terms from other documents can become part of the employment contract too.
That was the issue in MN v NHS Foundation Trust L. The Court of Appeal held that a provision in a collective agreement had become part of the employee’s contract of employment. The effect was that the employer was required to follow it.
The case involved a consultant doctor whose disciplinary and capability matters were to be handled using procedures consistent with Maintaining High Professional Standards in the NHS. A provision in that framework said the Medical Director would act as case manager in cases involving consultants. The Court found that this wording was sufficiently clear, important and workable to form part of the contractual relationship.
This is a useful reminder for employers to look wider than the contract itself. Collective agreements, incorporated procedures and sometimes even policies may create binding obligations if the wording and context support that conclusion.
Employment monitoring, DPIAs and automated decision-making
Employee monitoring continues to be an area of growing legal and practical risk, particularly where employers are using more intrusive systems or technology-led tools.
Where monitoring is likely to create a high risk to workers’ rights, employers should carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). This is especially important where monitoring involves things like reviewing emails, biometric systems, covert monitoring or tools that analyse behaviour or performance.
A good DPIA should explain what is being monitored, why the monitoring is needed, the impact on staff, what alternatives were considered and what steps are being taken to reduce risk.
Employers also need to be cautious when using AI or automated tools to make decisions about workers. Under data protection law, employees have important protections where decisions are based solely on automated processing and those decisions have legal or similarly significant effects.
In practice, most employers should avoid fully automated decision-making in areas such as recruitment, performance management or disciplinary action. Human oversight remains essential. Technology can support decision-making, but it should not replace proper human judgment.
Collective redundancy consultation: the stakes are rising
From April 2026, the maximum tribunal award for failing to comply with collective redundancy consultation obligations doubles from 90 days’ gross pay to 180 days’ gross pay per affected employee.
That is a significant increase in exposure and makes it even more important for employers to identify collective redundancy situations early.
It is also worth remembering that collective redundancy consultation applies more widely than the name suggests. For these purposes, redundancy can include a broad range of non-fault dismissals, not just traditional redundancy exercises.
The duty usually arises where 20 or more dismissals are proposed at one establishment within a 90-day period. Employers must consult with the appropriate employee representatives and must also submit an HR1 form to the Redundancy Payments Service at the start of the process.
With the financial risk of getting this wrong now much higher, employers should take advice early where there is any possibility that the collective consultation rules may be triggered.
The appeal stage is not a formality
It can be tempting to treat an appeal as a final administrative step once the real decision has already been made. A recent case is a helpful reminder that this is a mistake.
In Milrine v DHL, the employee appealed his dismissal, but the appeal process became disorganised and never actually took place. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that those failings were enough to make the dismissal unfair, even if the original decision to dismiss may otherwise have been reasonable.
The appeal stage forms part of the overall fairness of the dismissal process. It is not a box-ticking exercise.
For employers, that means appeals should be arranged promptly, handled properly, confirmed in writing and, where possible, heard by someone suitably independent. A poor appeal process can turn an otherwise defensible dismissal into an unfair one.
Handling controversial beliefs at work
The recent decision in Ngole v Touchstone Leeds is a useful reminder that employers must take care when responding to an individual’s religion or belief.
The law draws an important distinction between a protected belief itself and the way that belief is expressed. Those are not always the same thing. Employers should therefore avoid reacting too quickly simply because a belief is unpopular or causes offence.
The real question is whether the issue is the belief itself, or whether there is something about the way it has been manifested that is genuinely objectionable in the workplace context.
For HR teams, this means taking a step back before acting. Consider exactly what the concern is, whether there has been any actual workplace impact, and whether any response is proportionate. As with many sensitive workplace issues, careful analysis at the outset can make a significant difference.
Acas Early Conciliation: still worth taking seriously
Most employment tribunal claims still have to begin with Acas Early Conciliation. For employers, this remains an important opportunity to assess risk, explore resolution and avoid the cost and disruption of full tribunal proceedings.
Early Conciliation is intended to give both sides a chance to resolve the dispute before a claim is issued. If a settlement is reached, it is usually recorded in a binding COT3 agreement.
Even where settlement is not possible, the process can still be valuable. It gives employers an early opportunity to understand the issues, test the strength of the claim and make a strategic decision about whether an early commercial resolution is sensible.
Handled well, Early Conciliation can save significant time, cost and management distraction.
Drug use, refusal to test and workplace risk
Finally, Unsted v Wickes is a reminder that conduct outside work can become a workplace issue where it affects an employee’s fitness for work or creates a safety risk.
In this case, the employee had taken cocaine the night before work, attended work hungover and then refused to take a drug test. The employer’s policy stated that refusing a test would be treated in the same way as a positive result. The tribunal found the dismissal to be fair.
This case is not really about employers policing private lives. It is about workplace impact. If an employee attends work unfit, particularly in a role where safety matters, that can quickly become both a conduct issue and a health and safety issue.
Final thoughts
This month’s cases and developments all point in the same direction: process matters, precision matters, and wording matters.
Whether you are handling a disciplinary process, reviewing consultation obligations, updating monitoring practices or navigating sensitive workplace beliefs, taking the time to get the detail right at the outset can make all the difference later.
If any of these issues are arising in your organisation, getting advice early can help you manage risk and make more confident decisions.