July 2026

The July 2026 bulletin brings a wave of significant employment law updates, each carrying practical implications for HR teams, employers and workplace leaders.

From workplace balloting and bonus schemes to digital payslips, disability discrimination and artificial intelligence, tribunals and government consultations continue to reshape the employment landscape. Here is what organisations need to be preparing for.

Workplace Balloting: Preparing for a New Framework

The Government has published its response on electronic and workplace balloting, alongside a draft Code of Practice that could transform how statutory trade union ballots are conducted.

For employers, the most significant development is the proposed framework for workplace balloting. Although workplace voting will only be permitted with employer consent, the draft Code places considerable emphasis on both parties approaching any request constructively.

Employers will not be responsible for the costs, but agreeing to workplace balloting introduces operational, legal and security considerations that will require careful planning.

Employers will need to negotiate detailed voluntary access agreements. These agreements must set out important operational details, including:

• The location of the ballot.
• Access arrangements for the independent scrutineer.
• Voting times and operating hours.
• Emergency access provisions.
• How eligible workers will be given a reasonable opportunity to vote.

The agreement must also include commitments from the employer not to unreasonably prevent eligible workers from voting, not to monitor the voting location and to cooperate with both the trade union and the independent scrutineer.

Indirect Sex Discrimination: Lessons from Dobson

The decision in Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust reinforces the accepted position that childcare disparity can place women at a group disadvantage without requiring detailed statistical evidence.

However, the case also demonstrates that workplace flexibility requirements may be objectively justified where they are proportionate and supported by a legitimate business need.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal highlighted four important points:

• Both group disadvantage and individual disadvantage matter.
• Employers are not required to conduct forensic monitoring of how every policy, criterion or practice affects every protected group.
• The absence of practical alternatives may be relevant.
• Flexibility within a policy can strengthen its proportionality.

Bonus Schemes: Discretion Has Limits

In Chandrashekarappa v Wipro, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that once an employer exercises its discretion to award a bonus, the entitlement may crystallise into a contractual right.

Introducing new caps, conditions or approval requirements after the decision to award the bonus had already been made amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages.

Protected Beliefs: When Opinions Are Not Manifestations

The decision in London Ambulance Service v Garrett clarifies that not every opinion expressed by an employee will amount to a manifestation of a protected philosophical belief.

Although Mr Garrett held a philosophical belief in equal treatment, his statement that systemic racism does not exist lacked a sufficiently close connection to that belief.

Carers’ Rights: Potential Reforms Ahead

The Government has launched a consultation on strengthening employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children, signalling that carers’ rights may remain firmly on the employment law agenda.

The consultation follows the introduction of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which gave eligible employees the right to take up to one week of unpaid leave each year to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need.

The Government is now seeking views on whether that entitlement goes far enough. Proposals under consideration include:

• Extending unpaid carer’s leave beyond one week.
• Introducing a statutory right to return to the same role.
• Creating a period of paid carer’s leave.

The consultation also considers Hugh’s Law, which would provide leave and financial support for parents and caregivers immediately following the diagnosis of a serious illness in a child.

Wrongful Dismissal: Context Matters

Most HR professionals will be familiar with unfair dismissal claims, but wrongful dismissal is a different type of claim. Whereas unfair dismissal focuses on the fairness of the employer’s decision, wrongful dismissal is a contractual claim concerning whether the employer was entitled to terminate employment without notice.

Generally, a dismissed employee is entitled to receive their contractual or statutory notice pay. However, an employer may dismiss without notice where the employee has committed a repudiatory breach of contract, commonly referred to as gross misconduct.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision highlights the importance of considering the full circumstances before deciding whether an employee’s conduct amounts to such a breach.

In XX v YY, an assistant head teacher was dismissed after sending a sexual message to someone she believed to be under 18. However, she had acted under coercion and fear of harm. The EAT held that the alleged duress formed part of the relevant circumstances when assessing whether trust and confidence had been destroyed.

Disability Discrimination: Constructive Knowledge in Focus

Cunningham v BBC highlights that an employer may have constructive knowledge of a disability even where there has been no formal occupational health diagnosis.

The BBC was aware of the employee’s diabetes, fatigue and need for workplace adjustments. This information was sufficient to put the organisation on notice that the employee might meet the legal definition of disability.

Digital Payslips: Accessibility Is Key

The decision in Leedham v Royal Mail Group confirms that digital payslips can be lawful, but only where employees are genuinely able to access them.

Barriers such as a lack of suitable technology, restricted internet access or additional costs could make a digital-only system non-compliant.

AI in Litigation: Support, Not Replacement

Garfield AI’s recent involvement in a successful court claim demonstrates the growing role artificial intelligence may play in litigation preparation.

AI tools can assist with document analysis, information management, research and the preparation of court bundles. However, human oversight, legal judgement and advocacy remain essential.

What HR Teams Should Do Next

These developments demonstrate the importance of reviewing employment policies regularly rather than waiting for a dispute or legislative change to create an immediate problem.

HR teams should pay particular attention to flexible working practices, bonus documentation, carers’ policies, workplace accessibility, disciplinary investigations and the use of technology in employment processes.

---