We support clients across all sectors including private, non-profit and start ups
Home
Blogs
A UK-based specialist providing outsourced HR, employment law advice, data protection officer services and many different types of training.
New statutory rates for 2026
April marks the month each year where changes to statutory rates come into force. Most rate changes take effect from 6th April (to align with the start of the new tax year).
The statutory rates for family leave, sick pay, redundancy and the cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards are, from 6th April 2026, as follows:
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 per day |
Statutory redundancy pay | £751 per week |
Maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal * | £123,543 |
*Under Employment Rights Act 2025 changes, due to take effect from January 2027, the cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be removed in its entirety. The figure in this table applies to all dismissals from 6th April 2026 until this change comes into effect.
The average gross weekly earnings required to qualify for the various forms of family leave pay will also increase from £125.00 or more per week, to £129.00 or more per week from 6th April 2026.
The amounts in the table above represent the minimum requirements. They may be replaced by higher payments if the employer chooses to offer more voluntarily or is required to do so under the employee’s contract.
National minimum wage changes from 1st April
Last month, the Government released its latest ‘name and shame’ list of employers who failed to pay national minimum wage to their workers. On the list were high profile names including Costa, Bupa, and Hovis. This potentially reputationally damaging naming and shaming process sits alongside fines of up to 200% of the value of the underpayment. Paying national minimum wage incorrectly can be costly in more ways than one.
Employers can inadvertently end up paying the wrong rate of national minimum wage if they fail to correctly apply the annual increase which takes effect from 1st April each year, or if they fail to realise that an employee has moved into an older age category.
Employers should check their payroll provision to make sure systems reflect the new figures for national minimum wage which took effect from 1st April 2026:
Category | Rate |
Aged 21 and above | £12.71 |
Aged 18-20 | £10.85 |
Aged under 18 (but above compulsory school leaving age) | £8.00 |
Apprentices aged under 19 | £8.00 |
Apprentices aged 19 or over but in the first year of their apprenticeship | £8.00 |
These amounts set out the minimum wages payable. They may be replaced by higher payments if the employer chooses to offer more voluntarily or is required to do so under the employee’s contract.
Religion, belief and dress codes – striking the right legal balance
Dress codes may appear to be a routine HR issue, but they carry significant legal and reputational risk if handled incorrectly. Employers who impose inflexible or poorly thought-out requirements can quickly find themselves facing discrimination claims, employee relations issues and wider reputational damage.
The starting point for any analysis is the Equality Act 2010. This protects employees from discrimination because of religion or belief, amongst other protected characteristics. In the context of dress codes, the key legal risk is usually indirect discrimination—where a policy applies to everyone but has a disproportionate impact on a particular group.
The crucial question is whether the policy can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Case law provides helpful guidance on how tribunals approach this balancing exercise. In Eweida v United Kingdom, a British Airways employee was prevented from wearing a small visible cross in breach of its uniform policy. The European Court of Human Rights found in her favour, holding that the employer’s desire to project a particular corporate image was not sufficiently strong to justify restricting her right to manifest her religion. The cross was discreet and did not undermine professionalism.
By contrast, in Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, decided alongside Eweida, a nurse was prohibited from wearing a crucifix necklace for health and safety reasons. This time, the restriction was upheld. The risk of infection and the possibility of patients grabbing the necklace were considered legitimate concerns that outweighed the employee’s rights.
These cases illustrate a key principle: context is everything. Health and safety will often provide a strong justification; corporate image alone rarely will.
A similar approach can be seen in cases involving religious clothing. In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, a teaching assistant was required to remove her full face veil while working with pupils. Although this amounted to indirect discrimination, it was justified because the school needed effective communication in the classroom. Likewise, in Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Ltd, a requirement to wear a shorter jilbab was upheld due to health and safety concerns.
However, employers must still consider less discriminatory alternatives. Where adjustments are available, a blanket ban is unlikely to be proportionate.
It is also important to remember that protection extends beyond mainstream religions. Philosophical beliefs – if genuinely held and sufficiently serious – are also covered. This creates additional risk where dress codes regulate symbols or expressions of belief, particularly if policies are applied inconsistently.
For HR professionals, the key takeaway is that flexibility and justification are critical. A lawful dress code should allow for exceptions, be grounded in genuine business needs, and demonstrate that alternatives have been considered. In this area, a rigid approach is rarely defensible – and often unnecessary.
Dismissing for gross misconduct: lessons from Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue
A recent employment tribunal case shows how employers can get dismissals for gross misconduct wrong.
In Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, an experienced firefighter was dismissed immediately after making a comment described as misogynistic. He said that a woman he rescued looked “haggard for her age.”
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was unfair.
The legal test for a fair dismissal
When an employer dismisses someone for misconduct, they must follow a 3-step test from the case BHS v Burchell. The employer must:
Even if these are met, the dismissal must still fall within a ‘band of reasonable responses’ – meaning it is a decision a reasonable employer could make in the same situation.
Employers must also show that a fair process was followed
What the employer did wrong
In this case, the employer made several key mistakes:
They used a “Note for File” from five years earlier.
Their own policy said this should be ignored after six months.
They treated Personal Development Plans (PDPs) as evidence of misconduct.
However, PDPs are not disciplinary records—and one even described the employee as a high performer.
They relied on past competence concerns as if they were misconduct, which was incorrect.
These errors made the dismissal unfair, even though the comment itself was inappropriate.
A partial win for the employer
Despite the unfair dismissal finding, the tribunal said that dismissing the employee for the comment alone could have been reasonable.
This was because:
Compensation reduced
Because the tribunal agreed that misconduct did occur, it reduced the employee’s compensation by 65%.
This follows the principle of contributory fault – the idea that the employee’s own actions helped cause their dismissal.
Key takeaway
Even where misconduct is serious, a dismissal can still be unfair if:
Employers must get both the decision and the process right.
Handling suspect complaints – A practical guide for HR
Most workplace complaints are raised in good faith. Occasionally, however, HR professionals will encounter grievances that appear tactical, exaggerated or even fabricated. These situations are difficult: get it wrong and you risk serious legal exposure but overreact, and you may unfairly penalise an employee raising genuine concerns.
The starting point is to stay objective. Certain scenarios may raise suspicion—for example, complaints made immediately after disciplinary action, during redundancy processes, or in the context of ongoing performance management. Other indicators might include inconsistent accounts, shifting allegations or a pattern of repeated grievances. However, these are only warning signs, not proof of bad faith.
Even where concerns arise, the complaint must still be taken seriously. An allegation that is untrue is not necessarily dishonest. The correct approach is to follow your normal grievance or whistleblowing procedure, appoint an impartial investigator, and keep an open mind throughout.
Evidence is critical. A thorough investigation should test the credibility of the complaint by examining documentation, witness evidence and consistency of accounts. If the complaint is not upheld but there is no clear evidence of dishonesty, it is usually safest to leave matters there.
Where there is strong evidence that the allegation was deliberately fabricated, disciplinary action may be appropriate. However, this is a high-risk step. Before proceeding, ensure:
It is also important to explore potential mitigation. Stress, workplace conflict, or underlying grievances may explain behaviour and should be taken into account when deciding on any sanction.
In more serious cases, knowingly false allegations may amount to gross misconduct and justify dismissal. However, this should never be a knee-jerk reaction.
The key takeaway is balance. Treat all complaints seriously, investigate thoroughly and only move to disciplinary action where there is clear evidence of bad faith. A measured, evidence-led approach will reduce both legal risk and employee relations fallout.
