Hello everyone and welcome back to our end of the month newsletter. At the time of writing (Tuesday as it stands) the Spring statement is yet to be released, so if there are any bombshells in there that you’re expecting here I will have to disappoint you early! I’m Kyle, one of the solicitors here at PJH Law and I’ll be walking you through a very quick roundup of this month’s employment law news. For those of you that missed last week’s update – it was a case conducted by Liam Pike here at PJH Law, so go read it – you can find that here.

 

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023

From 6 April 2025, the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 will come into force. This act introduces a new statutory entitlement for parents whose babies require neonatal care. The leave is available to parents who have a baby in hospital care for at least 7 continuous days within the first 28 days after birth. The new entitlement is split between employees who have at least 26 weeks’ service – who receive statutory neonatal pay as well as leave – and shorter servers who are entitled to take up to 12 week’s unpaid leave. The leave can be taken in one continuous block or over multiple periods.

This new change should provide vital support for families of premature and sick babies who require additional support. Ensuring that new policies are in place to deal with this scenario is vital and will ensure that everyone is aware of their position.

 

Changes to National Minimum Wage

Some boring numbers for you, we have the new increased national minimum wage which comes into effect from 1 April 2025;

Ages 21 and over: An increase from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour.

Ages 18 to 20: An increase from £8.60 to £10 per hour.

Apprentices and under 18s: An increase from £6.40 to £7.55 per hour.

This also increases the rate of SSP, which will rise to £118.75 per week, with statutory maternity, paternity, adoption, and shared parental pay rising to £187.18 per week.

 

Driving Change: How a Bus Driver Challenged Disability Discrimination

In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of London United Busways Ltd v Mr O Sener has sparked discussions about disability-related workplace harassment.

Mr Sener, the Claimant was diagnosed with a urinary tract condition, requiring frequent toilet breaks. Following his GP’s advice in 2017, he was removed to shorter routes with appropriate facilities. However, incidents between 2018 and 2019 revealed ongoing conflict between Mr Sener and his employer regarding his medical needs. These included questions about the delays caused by his breaks, refusal to provide overtime, and comments from managers and controllers about his condition.

The tribunal found that this act had the unintentional effect of violating Mr Sener’s dignity, despite no malicious intent by the employer. For instance, repeated questioning about toilet use embarrassed Mr Sener, contributing to a hostile work environment.

His employer appealed to the tribunal’s decision, examining whether the Caimant’s perception of harassment was reasonable under the circumstances. The employer asserted that some meetings and interactions such as those conducted for welfare or operational checks, were misinterpreted as harassment.

Despite this, the EAT upheld the ET’s decision.

This case demonstrates unintentional actions can still be considered harassment if they impact an employee’s dignity or well-being. Employers are encouraged to provide adequate training to ensure equitable treatment to reduce the likelihood of similar disputes.

 

Childcare vs Career: EAT Rules on Indirect Discrimination and Dismissal?

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgment in Marston Holdings Ltd v Mrs A Perkins addresses pivotal issues concerning indirect sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. This case involved Mrs. Perkins, a manager at Marston Holdings, whose employment was terminated amidst disputes over a newly introduced travel requirement.

Mrs Perkins, the Head of Enforcement was employed by Marston Holdings since 2005. In 2021, the company underwent restructuring, which included adding a travel component to her role. Mrs. Perkins, as the primary caregiver for two young children, expressed difficulty in meeting the travel requirement and suggested remote working alternatives. Despite this, Marston Holdings persisted with the new travel demand, leading to her dismissal, framed as a redundancy, in 2022.

Mrs Perkins asserted that the travel requirement disproportionately affected women with childcare responsibilities, resulting in indirect sex discrimination, and challenged the fairness of her dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld both claims. It ruled that the travel requirement was a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) that placed women, particularly those with primary caregiving roles, at a disadvantage. The ET also found Mrs. Perkins’ dismissal unfair, noting the employer failed to justify the travel requirement as a legitimate and proportionate necessity for business operations.

The EAT overturned the ET’s decision on both counts. It identified errors in the ET’s approach to group disadvantage in the indirect discrimination claim and procedural flaws in how the unfair dismissal claim was handled.

The ET was not able to distinguish whether the disadvantage was a result of the travel requirement or was specific to Mrs Perkins’ circumstances. Furthermore, the ET should have considered if the PCP disadvantaged a larger group of women, not just Mrs Perkins.

While Mrs Perkins initially accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal, the ET unilaterally reaffirmed the claim, determining that there was no genuine redundancy without adequately indicating the parties. The EAT asserted that this approach undermined procedural justice.

Tribunals may acknowledge societal disparities (e.g. childcare responsibilities disproportionately borne by women). However, establishing group disadvantage requires evidence of the PCP’s impact on the relevant workforce group, not just assumptions.

Employers imposing potentially discriminatory PCPs must demonstrate their need through evidence and demonstrate they proportionately achieve legitimate objectives without feasible alternatives.

This case highlights the importance of rigorous evidential and procedural standards in employment litigation, particularly where discrimination overlaps with broader societal norms.

 

Rail Industry Reform – Potential Redundancies Ahead

The UK government’s Great British Railways (GBR) reform is set to centralise rail operations, aiming to create a more efficient, cost-effective system. This restructuring follows years of financial strain on the railway sector, worsened by declining passenger numbers, high operational costs, and fragmented management under the current franchise system. The reform seeks to reduce duplication, improve service reliability, and cut costs, but may come at the expense of jobs.

Thousands of redundancies are expected, particularly in back-office roles, customer service, and middle management as operations are streamlined. While unions have warned of potential strike action, these negotiations will continue as the situation unfolds.

 

Brew-Haha: Nurse Left Without Tea Awarded £41,000

In a steep (you can’t hate me anymore than I hate myself) turn of events, an NHS nurse has been awarded £41,000 after being left out of the daily tea round by colleagues. A situation wherein controversy was left to brew in the workplace. The nurse claimed this exclusion was a form of bullying which broke trust and confidence, leading to the situation spilling over into a claim.

While some might think it’s all a storm in a teacup, this case highlights the importance of inclusivity in the workplace. After all, when it comes to office culture, everyone deserves a fair pour.

I’m reminded of a Ricky Gervais joke: pun is short for pun-ch me in the face.

 

Lighter Side of the News – Sound the Kettles: The Tea Time Alarm That Fooled the Internet!

The British love tea. But imagine an entire nation dropping everything at the sound of a blaring siren just to brew a cuppa. Welcome to the viral phenomenon that is the “Tea Time Alarm,” a social media prank so convincing that it’s left Americans scratching their heads and Britons giggling into their mugs.

 

What Is the Tea Time Alarm?

 

It all started as a cheeky joke. Social media creators in the UK began posting videos of themselves reacting to a loud “national tea alarm,” claiming it’s a daily ritual that signals the entire country to pause whatever they’re doing and make tea. These clips show people abandoning meetings, stopping in the middle of chores, and even halting traffic to honour the sacred tradition of tea time.

From factory workers flipping off machines to doctors dramatically declaring, “Scalpel down, kettle on,” the trend escalated quickly.

Some Americans genuinely believed there was a country-wide siren enforcing tea time. TikTok and Instagram comment sections exploded with questions like:

“Is this like a fire alarm but for tea?”

“Wait, how does it work? Do you all have kettles at your desks?”

“So, is this like a government law or just a guideline?”

One particularly viral fake news clip explained the “origin” of the alarm, claiming it was introduced during WWII to boost morale. Throw in some black-and-white footage of soldiers sipping tea, and voila—you’ve got a bunch of confused Americans Googling, “Does the UK have a national tea siren?”

The absurdity of the Tea Time Alarm prank lies in its absurdness. It shifts to the British stereotype of tea being more of a religion than a beverage, and the country’s supposed obsession with punctuality.

Whether you’re a Brit chuckling at the prank or an American wondering if you should install a kettle at your desk, the Tea Time Alarm trend is a reminder of how social media can blend cultures in the most enjoyable ways. Next time you hear an unexpected alarm, perhaps grab a mug, you never know when it might be teatime.

 

Feedback of the Week

We’re thrilled to share some wonderful feedback from one of our valued returning clients. Their words truly reflect the dedication and effort our team puts into delivering outstanding service:

D F said: “Exceptional service as always from a fabulous, supportive team!”