Monthly Bulletin – July 2026 – Practical Perspectives

Electronic and workplace balloting: what employers need to know

The Government has published its response to consultation on electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots, alongside a draft Code of Practice, setting out how workplace ballots could operate in practice.

The changes form part of the Government’s wider programme of trade union reform and, if implemented, will introduce new options for unions conducting statutory union ballots. Importantly, it will be for the trade union – not the employer – to decide whether to conduct a ballot electronically, by post, or, where agreement can be reached, in the workplace.

For employers, the most significant development is the proposed framework for workplace balloting. While workplace voting will only be permitted with employer consent, the draft Code places considerable emphasis on both parties approaching any request constructively. The Code suggests that employers should consider the impact on the wider employment relations climate before rejecting a request and should approach any request with an open mind. Where consent is refused, employers are expected to explain their reasons clearly to the union.

Employers should note that they are not required to bear the costs of a workplace ballot. However, agreeing to a workplace ballot could create a number of practical and legal considerations that will need to be carefully managed.

Before any workplace ballot can take place, the employer and union must enter into a written “voluntary access agreement”. This agreement must set out key operational details, including the ballot location, access arrangements for the independent scrutineer, voting times, operating hours, and emergency access provisions. It must also contain commitments by the employer not to unreasonably prevent eligible workers from voting, not to monitor the voting location, and to cooperate with both the union and scrutineer in conducting the ballot.

The draft Code also requires the agreement to address the consequences of any breach by the employer, including responsibility for resulting costs and the status of votes cast if a breach prevents the ballot from being completed. While the Code suggests that equivalent provisions should be included for union breaches, the detail of these arrangements is likely to become an important point of negotiation between the parties.

Employers considering a request for workplace balloting should therefore be prepared for potentially detailed discussions around access, operational disruption, confidentiality, security, and liability. The requirement to document these arrangements in advance may help reduce disputes, but it also creates another area where legal advice is likely to be required.

The draft Code is due to come into force in August 2026. Employers should start considering now how they would respond to requests for workplace balloting, and whether internal policies or industrial relations strategies need to be updated in anticipation of the new regime.

Bonus schemes: be careful about changing the rules

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case is a useful reminder that employers cannot always change the rules of a bonus scheme after a decision has been made.

In Chandrashekarappa v Wipro, an employee was told he could receive a discretionary “kitty bonus” of up to 1% of the revenue generated from new business, provided it was approved by the relevant sector lead. After the employee secured a major contract, the sector lead approved the full 1% bonus.

However, before the bonus was paid, the employer introduced new requirements. It added another level of approval and placed a cap on the amount that could be paid. As a result, the employee received much less than he had originally been told he would receive.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that this was an unlawful deduction from wages. Once the sector lead had approved the bonus under the rules that had been communicated to employees, the employee had become entitled to it. The employer could not later add new conditions or reduce the amount payable.

So, what does this mean for HR?

The main takeaway is that a bonus described as “discretionary” does not give an employer complete freedom. Once a manager has exercised their discretion and approved a payment, an employee may have a legal right to receive it.

HR teams should make sure that bonus schemes clearly set out all approval processes, limits and conditions from the start. If senior sign-off or payment caps are required, these should be included in the scheme before any decisions are made.

This case is a good reminder that employers should think carefully before changing the rules of an incentive scheme. Once an employee’s entitlement has been established, it may be too late to do so.

When does expressing a view count as a manifestation of a protected belief?

Employees are protected from discrimination because of a protected religion or belief. That protection can extend not only to the belief itself, but also to the way the belief is expressed or “manifested”.

However, not every act by an employee with a protected belief will be a protected manifestation of that belief.

There must be a close link between the protected belief and the act or expression. This principle comes from the case of Eweida v British Airways, which confirmed that there must be a sufficiently close connection, or “nexus”, between the belief and its manifestation.

This issue was considered recently by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London Ambulance Service v Garrett.

Mr Garrett, a paramedic, was disciplined after stating during a workplace discussion that systemic racism does not exist. He argued that this amounted to discrimination because of his philosophical belief that all people should be treated equally regardless of race or culture.

The EAT disagreed. Although Mr Garrett’s belief in equal treatment was capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010, his comments about systemic racism were not a manifestation of that belief. The EAT found there was not a close enough link between the two. Someone could believe in equal treatment for all, while also accepting that systemic racism exists.

For HR professionals, the key lesson is that holding a protected belief does not automatically protect every statement made by an employee. When concerns arise about comments made in the workplace, it is important to consider whether those comments are genuinely connected to the employee’s protected belief. If the link is too weak, the comments themselves may not attract protection under discrimination law.

Could greater employment rights for carers be on the way?

The government is currently consulting on ways to strengthen employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children.

The consultation builds on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which introduced a right for eligible employees to take up to five days of unpaid carer’s leave each year. However, the government is now asking whether that entitlement provides enough support for employees with caring responsibilities.

Several options are being considered. These include increasing the amount of unpaid carer’s leave available, introducing a new right for employees to return to their role after a longer period of caring-related absence, and creating a statutory entitlement to paid carer’s leave.

The consultation is also seeking views on “Hugh’s Law”, a proposal that would provide leave and financial support for parents and caregivers following the diagnosis of a serious illness in a child.

No changes have been confirmed at this stage, but the consultation highlights the growing focus on the challenges faced by working carers. Many employees are balancing work with caring responsibilities for children, elderly relatives or family members with long-term health conditions, and those pressures can have a significant impact on attendance, wellbeing and retention.

For HR professionals, this is an area worth keeping an eye on. If new rights are introduced, employers may need to review policies, absence procedures and manager training. Even if the law does not change significantly, the consultation reflects a wider expectation that employers should support carers in the workplace wherever possible.

The consultation closes on 1 September 2026, and its outcome may give a useful indication of the direction of travel for future family-friendly employment rights.

Wrongful dismissal: why the circumstances behind misconduct matter

Most HR professionals are familiar with unfair dismissal claims, but wrongful dismissal is a different type of claim. While unfair dismissal looks at whether it was fair for the employer to dismiss the employee, wrongful dismissal focuses on whether the employer was entitled to dismiss without notice.

In most cases, an employee who is dismissed is entitled to receive either their contractual notice pay or their statutory notice pay. However, an employer can dismiss without notice if the employee has committed a serious breach of contract, often referred to as gross misconduct. In those situations, the employer can treat the employment contract as ended immediately and does not have to pay notice pay.

A recent decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) shows why it is important to look at the full circumstances surrounding an employee’s conduct before deciding whether summary dismissal is justified.

In XX v YY, an assistant head teacher sent a sexual message to someone she believed to be under the age of 18. However, the employer accepted that she had acted while trapped in a coercive and controlling relationship. She was under extreme pressure and feared serious harm to herself and her children if she did not comply with demands being made of her.

When the conduct came to light, she was dismissed without notice. Her wrongful dismissal claim was initially unsuccessful because the tribunal decided that the pressure she was under was not relevant when assessing whether her actions amounted to a serious breach of contract.

The EAT disagreed. It said that the correct approach is to consider the employee’s conduct objectively and in the context of all the circumstances. The question is whether the conduct was serious enough to destroy the trust and confidence needed for the employment relationship to continue. This included taking account of the duress under which the employee had acted.

For HR professionals, the case is a useful reminder that conduct should not be considered in isolation. Even where behaviour appears to amount to gross misconduct, employers should carefully assess any mitigating circumstances before deciding that dismissal without notice, and the loss of notice pay, is justified.