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.
Trade union access: What changes on 30th October?
From 30th October 2026, independent trade unions will have a new statutory route to access workplaces and communicate with workers. For businesses with little or no existing union involvement, this could be a significant change.
What does “access” mean?
A union with a certificate of independence will be able to request access for purposes including meeting, supporting, representing, recruiting or organising workers, and facilitating collective bargaining. It does not extend to organising industrial action.
Importantly, the union does not need to be recognised by the employer, and the workers concerned do not need to be union members.
Access can take two broad forms:
Employers cannot simply insist on digital access instead of physical access, or vice versa. There is a statutory presumption in favour of access, provided it does not unreasonably interfere with the business.
Can an employer say no?
There is some scope to resist access, but a blanket refusal will be difficult to justify. Access should be refused entirely only where that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The CAC must refuse statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers overall. It may also be reasonable to refuse access in certain circumstances, including where another independent union is already recognised in respect of the workers concerned, there is an ongoing statutory recognition process, or there are overlapping access arrangements or requests. Health and safety, security and operational considerations may also affect the terms on which access is permitted.
How does the process work?
A union can make a formal access request. The employer has 15 working days to respond, after which there is normally a 25-working-day negotiation period. If terms cannot be agreed, either party can refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), which can decide whether access should be granted and, if so, on what terms.
For HR, the practical priority is to decide who will receive and manage access requests, understand the tight statutory timetable, and consider now how physical and digital access could work without unnecessarily disrupting the business.
Trade union statement duty delayed until January 2027
One of the Employment Rights Act 2025 changes expected this October has been pushed back.
The new duty requiring employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union was originally due to take effect on 30 October 2026. The Government has now confirmed that it will instead come into force on 1 January 2027.
At the same time, the Government has published its response to last year’s consultation, giving employers a much clearer picture of how the new duty will work in practice.
What will employers have to do?
Employers will have to provide workers with a standardised statement, the wording of which will be set by regulations. Employers will not be free to rewrite it, although certain workplace-specific information can be added.
The statement will include information about the functions of trade unions, recognised unions and statutory access agreements where relevant, and workers’ statutory rights relating to union membership. It must also signpost the Certification Officer’s list of trade unions.
For new workers, the statement must be provided directly alongside their written statement of employment particulars.
For existing workers, employers will have more flexibility. They can provide the statement directly or make it continuously and reasonably accessible, for example through an intranet or staff handbook. Existing workers must initially receive the statement, or be told where to find it, by 5 April 2027. Thereafter, employers using direct communication must reissue it annually by 5 April. Those using an indirect method must instead send an annual reminder explaining where it can be found.
The statement will also need to be reissued within one month if the identity of a recognised union, or a union with a statutory access agreement, changes.
What should HR do now?
The delay gives HR teams some extra breathing space. For now, employers should identify any recognised unions or statutory access agreements, decide how they intend to communicate with existing workers and watch for the regulations and detailed guidance, which are expected in the coming months.
Bereavement leave: is your policy ready for April 2027?
Many employers already offer some form of compassionate or bereavement leave. From April 2027, however, there will be a statutory minimum to work around.
The Government has now confirmed how the new day-one right to bereavement leave is intended to operate. For HR, the task will be to compare existing policies with the new statutory floor and decide whether anything needs to change.
Who will be covered?
Employees will be entitled to up to two weeks’ unpaid leave following the death of a spouse or civil partner, long-term partner, parent, adult child or sibling. A range of step, half, adoptive, foster and kinship relationships will also qualify.
The statutory definition has limits. Grandparents, grandchildren, wider family members, close friends and ‘chosen family’ are not included. Employers can, of course, continue to offer more generous arrangements.
Pregnancy loss before 24 weeks will also be covered, including miscarriage, ectopic and molar pregnancy, termination and IVF embryo transfer loss. The right will extend beyond the person who was pregnant to include partners and intended parents.
How will the leave work?
Flexibility is a central feature of the new regime.
The two-week entitlement will reflect the employee’s normal working pattern and can be taken as individual days rather than one continuous block. Employees will have 56 weeks following the bereavement in which to use their entitlement.
Notice requirements will also be relatively light touch. During the first eight weeks after bereavement, notice need only be given before the employee starts work that day, or as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards. After eight weeks, one week’s notice will be required.
Employers will not be entitled to require evidence of the bereavement.
What about Parental Bereavement Leave?
That remains a separate right. Where a child under 18 dies, or there is a stillbirth after 24 weeks, an employee may qualify for Parental Bereavement Leave and potentially Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.
In relevant circumstances, an employee could qualify for leave under both regimes.
Time for a policy check
HR should review existing bereavement, compassionate leave and pregnancy loss policies before April 2027. Look particularly at who qualifies, how much leave is available, whether it is paid, how it can be taken and what notice or evidence is required.
The statutory scheme is intended to provide a floor, not a ceiling. The challenge is therefore not simply adding a new entitlement, but working out how it fits with what your organisation already offers.
Tribunal compensation: which benefits count?
When an employment tribunal awards compensation for lost earnings, the aim is generally to compensate the employee for the financial loss they have actually suffered. Benefits received during that period may therefore need to be taken into account.
But what happens if the compensation award itself means the employee loses their entitlement to those benefits?
That unusual question arose in SBH Windermere v Nunns.
SBH Windermere v Nunns
Mr Nunns succeeded in several harassment claims and was awarded compensation for six months’ lost earnings.
The tribunal initially deducted the Universal Credit it expected him to receive during that period. There was, however, a problem. Once compensation was awarded, Mr Nunns’ savings would exceed the £16,000 Universal Credit limit, meaning he would not actually receive the benefit the tribunal had deducted.
The tribunal reconsidered its decision and increased his loss of earnings award accordingly.
The EAT agreed that it was entitled to do so. It would not properly compensate Mr Nunns to deduct a benefit he would not actually receive.
But that was not the end of the story.
The employer argued that Mr Nunns could instead have claimed New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance or New Style Employment and Support Allowance, neither of which depended on his savings.
Once the tribunal reopened its calculation, it also needed to consider that wider mitigation argument. The case was sent back to decide whether Mr Nunns should have claimed those benefits.
Key HR takeaway
Remedy calculations are not simply about salary.
When assessing potential tribunal exposure, employers should consider what benefits the employee actually received, what they will remain entitled to receive following an award, and whether there were other benefits they could reasonably have claimed to reduce their loss.
Nunns is a useful reminder that compensation requires a look at the employee’s real financial position, not simply a theoretical benefits entitlement.
Equal pay: when can market rates justify paying jobs differently?
Sometimes employers have to pay more for particular jobs simply to attract and keep enough people. But what happens if those jobs are predominantly carried out by men, while employees doing work of equal value are predominantly women?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Thandi v Next provides some useful guidance.
What happened at Next?
More than 3,500 predominantly female retail sales consultants brought equal pay claims comparing themselves with warehouse workers, a small majority of whom were male. The two groups performed very different roles, but their work had already been found to be of equal value.
The warehouse workers were nevertheless paid more.
Next argued that there was a straightforward business explanation. The market rate for warehouse workers was higher, and it needed to pay that rate to recruit and retain sufficient staff. The same recruitment pressures did not apply to its retail workforce.
The employment tribunal initially rejected Next’s justification for the difference in basic pay. However, the EAT held that it had approached the question incorrectly.
Paying the market rate necessary to recruit and retain sufficient warehouse staff was capable of being a legitimate business aim. Importantly, the evidence showed that Next was paying what it needed to secure sufficient warehouse workers, and no more.
The fact that Next could potentially have afforded to increase the pay of its retail employees did not mean that paying warehouse workers more could not be justified.
Next therefore succeeded in its appeal concerning basic pay and certain other elements of remuneration, although the retail employees remained successful in relation to some other differences, including paid breaks and overtime and nighttime premiums.
What should HR take from this?
The decision does not give employers a free pass to pay different groups differently simply by pointing to “market rates”.
If market forces are creating a pay differential, HR should be able to explain and evidence what is happening. For example, are particular roles genuinely harder to recruit into? What salary does the business need to offer to attract suitable candidates? Are there retention difficulties? How was the relevant rate determined?
It is also worth keeping those reasons under review. A pay differential which could be justified by recruitment difficulties when it was introduced may become harder to explain if the market subsequently changes.
The practical message is that pay differences between male and female-dominated roles deserve scrutiny, even where there appears to be a commercial explanation. Market forces may provide a defence, but employers will be in a much stronger position if the evidence behind their pay decisions has been identified and recorded at the time.
