Happy end of November everyone and thank you for joining us for PJH Law’s monthly newsletter. For those that don’t know me, my name is Kyle and I’ll be giving you a short summary of some of the most important topics in employment law this month. For those of you who missed our most recent case of the week update, you can find that here. This month we have seen some responses to the Government’s plans to reform certain elements of employment law, a High Court decision on striking agency workers, and a report showing that we are all getting more stressed at work! Finally, we will be looking at some lighter side of the news seeing you into the Christmas period. Rumbles in the deep – the drumbeats ring out – Mariah Carey has escaped containment once again.

Business Concerns Over Employment Reforms

Business leaders are increasingly alarmed about the potential economic impact of proposed employment law reforms in the UK. Measures such as enhanced protections against unfair dismissal, restrictions on zero-hour contracts, and additional employee rights are estimated to cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. These reforms, while aimed at improving worker security, have drawn criticism from the Institute of Directors (IoD) and other groups, which fear the changes will discourage hiring and lead to job cuts, particularly in low-wage sectors. A recent survey of 700 business leaders revealed that 57% believe the reforms will deter new recruitment efforts, further straining the labour market.

The broader context includes concerns over the cumulative burden on employers, with tax increases compounding the financial strain of compliance with these new laws. Some businesses are already delaying hiring plans or considering workforce reductions to manage anticipated costs. Advocates of the reforms argue they are necessary to address inequities in the labour market, but the government faces mounting pressure to balance worker protections with the economic realities of running a business.

 

High Court Decision on Agency Workers During Strikes

The High Court recently overturned regulations allowing the use of agency workers to cover for striking employees, marking a significant shift in labour law. The court found that the government had failed to consult adequately with trade unions when implementing the rules, rendering the regulations unlawful. This decision reinstates the longstanding prohibition on using agency staff during industrial action, strengthening protections for striking workers.

The ruling is seen as a victory for trade unions, which had criticized the regulations as undermining the effectiveness of strikes and diluting workers’ collective bargaining power. For employers, the decision limits their ability to maintain operations during labour disputes, potentially increasing the pressure to resolve conflicts swiftly. The case underscores the importance of thorough consultation and compliance with procedural requirements when introducing significant labour law changes.

 

Sick Leave Linked to High Job Stress in UK

A report by the Commission for Healthier Working Lives highlights that UK workers face some of the highest levels of job stress in Europe, driven by long hours, tight deadlines, and limited autonomy in decision-making. Despite these challenges, productivity gains have not kept pace, raising concerns about the sustainability of current working conditions. The report calls for urgent action to improve workplace environments and support employee well-being as a means to enhance productivity.

The findings have significant implications for employers, as high stress levels are linked to increased absenteeism, lower morale, and reduced efficiency. Addressing these issues may require changes such as more flexible working arrangements, better workload management, and investment in employee support systems. Advocates for workplace reform emphasise that prioritising mental health and work-life balance can benefit both workers and businesses by fostering a healthier and more engaged workforce.

 

Lighter Side of the News…or is it?

This month, we saw a case go to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for sex-based harassment. The argument was that calling a man ‘bald’ amounted to harassment on the grounds of sex, as men are statistically more likely than women to suffer from baldness and ridiculing them for this trait amounted to a form of harassment. The case involved an electrician, Tony Finn, who brought the claim following derogatory comments made by his supervisor.

The argument proved far from hair-brained (forgive me) as the Tribunal cut to the root of the issue (put me in prison) to decide that the comments did amount to harassment. The Judgment found that making comments about a man’s baldness was akin to making derogatory comments about a woman’s breasts by comparing the two situations.

While it is important to smooth out (somebody stop me) issues between employees, it is more important to ensure that employees are not placed in hostile or degrading environments based on a protected characteristic, especially about their appearance.

 

Feedback of the Week

We have great feedback to share from one of Kyle’s clients this week:

M D said:

“Kyle was amazingly professional and quickly understood what was required. He acted promptly and gave me options.”