Newsletter May 2025

Hello everyone and thank you for joining us for our end of May newsletter. My name is Kyle and I’ll be walking you through a quick roundup of the highlights in employment law that happened this month.

Tribunal Ruling on Remote Work Discipline

The first case that has been in the media this month was in relation to some remote working. Before I explain the case in a bit more detail, ask yourself whether you think disciplinary action would be appropriate where a manager requested he attend a meeting remotely because he needed to supervise gardeners on his property.

Mr Ben Wicken was employed by Akita Systems Ltd from March 2014, progressing to the role of IT Director. On 28 June 2022 he resigned without notice, alleging constructive unfair dismissal due to a series of actions by the company’s Managing Director and HR Consultant. One of the alleged incidents was the Claimant’s request to work from home while attending an important meeting in order to supervise gardeners who were working on his property. His manager believed that he was not taking the meeting seriously enough. This is as far as the news reporting on this topic seems to go. However, there were a series of other incidents which caused the resignation – these were: Initiating inappropriate discussions at critical business times, granting pay rises to department members during the Claimant’s leave, making unjustified comparisons to other staff to belittle the Claimant, and verbally belittling him on 5 May 2022.

The Tribunal found that the culmination of these actions resulted in a breach of trust and confidence such that it entitled the Claimant to resign and treat that resignation as a dismissal. So while it isn’t quite as interesting as the headlines that made it into regular media, the Claimant’s position is more believable and extensive with context beyond simply being dismissed for working from home. However, the Tribunal did make a finding that doing so would not amount to blameworthy conduct which would reduce the amount of the Claimant’s award.

 

Equality v Reform (Ltd)

This month, Reform UK set out clear proposals to scale back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, both nationally and at local government levels. Taking a leaf out of the American policy playbook, the party’s manifesto called for the removal of what it described as “wasteful” DEI programs, arguing they contribute little to productivity and public value. Reform also proposed replacing the Equality Act 2010, suggesting that its provisions allow for preferential treatment that undermines merit-based decisions. At the local level, Reform councillors were instructed to opt out of DEI and climate change training, and some councils began reviewing their DEI-related spending and staffing.

These moves have sparked debate among legal experts and public sector leaders. Critics argue that removing DEI measures could weaken protections for people with protected characteristics and potentially conflict with the Public Sector Equality Duty under current law. Supporters, meanwhile, view the changes as a way to reduce bureaucracy and focus resources on core services. The financial impact of the proposed cuts remains contested, with estimates varying widely. The discussion around DEI continues to reflect broader tensions about the role of identity, equality, and fairness in workplace and public policy.

 

Workplace Support for Health Issues

In an exact opposite call to the story above, this month saw Sir Charlie Mayfield, former chair of the John Lewis Partnership, highlighting growing concerns over the lack of adequate workplace support for employees with health conditions. Speaking as chair of the ‘What Works Centre for Wellbeing’, Mayfield argued that many workers are being pushed out of employment due to a fear driven culture around disclosing health issues and a lack of cohesive support between employers and healthcare providers. He called for a stronger framework that helps employees remain in work while managing long-term physical or mental health conditions, pointing to the need for early intervention and better access to workplace adjustments.

Mayfield criticised the UK’s existing approach as fragmented and overly reliant on GPs who often lack the time or workplace context to support return to work plans. He advocated for increased funding and a national strategy that bridges the gap between employment and health systems, with a focus on preventative action rather than crisis response. The call aligns with wider concerns about economic inactivity linked to long-term sickness, which continues to be a pressing issue in the UK labour market. For HR professionals, the message underscores the need to invest in comprehensive employee wellbeing policies that go beyond basic compliance and focus on long-term retention and productivity.

 

Lighter Side – Mug Meltdown

In one of May’s more peculiar employment law cases, Adeel Habib, a new recruit at a Currys warehouse in Southampton, took his workplace grievances to tribunal after his personal mug mysteriously vanished from the staff kitchen. Not just any mug, mind you – his mug. Convinced that foul play was afoot, Habib accused his colleagues of theft in what the tribunal later described as a “confrontational” manner, sparking tension that brewed faster than a staffroom kettle. (Why is there a theme of tea throughout these cases? I feel like I’m running low on tea and brew based puns?!?)

Habib also made claims of racial discrimination and sexual harassment (the latter involving a bizarre reference to a colleague’s drinking bottle). However, Employment Judge David Hughes ruled that while misplacing your favourite mug can indeed ruin your day, it doesn’t amount to discrimination – and colleagues resenting you for accusing them of petty theft isn’t necessarily racism. Habib’s claims were ultimately dismissed, though he did walk away with three weeks’ notice pay. The moral of the story? In office politics, it’s best not to stir the pot.. especially if it’s someone else’s.

 

Feedback of the Week

This week’s feedback speaks for itself.

Mr Hodges said:

“I found myself in the unfortunate position of needing legal support, and I am extremely grateful to have engaged PJH Law. From my very first contact with the firm through to a successful outcome, every interaction I had with the team was marked by professionalism, empathy, and efficiency.

 

The solicitor handling my case took the time to fully understand the complexities of my situation. I was particularly impressed by their ability to communicate legal advice in a way that was both clear and compliant, ensuring I felt informed and confident throughout the process. Their guidance was not only sound from a legal standpoint but also delivered with genuine care and consideration for my circumstances.

 

The overall process was seamless and well-structured, which greatly reduced the stress during a challenging time. I would not hesitate to recommend PJH Law to anyone in need of expert, compassionate, and reliable employment law services.”