June, 2026
Award for claims of victimisation and constructive dismissal
A tribunal awarded a programme coordinator more than £22,000 in compensation after finding she had been victimised and constructively dismissed by her employer.
The case arose after her manager made comments suggesting she was “going through the change” (menopause) when she lost her train of thought. After raising a grievance about the comments, she experienced difficulties at work, including being moved to a factory office and being placed on a performance review plan. She later resigned, stating that her position had become untenable and that the company had failed to deal properly with her complaints.
The tribunal agreed that she had been constructively dismissed and victimised, awarding compensation for injury to feelings, loss of earnings, pension losses, and interest. However, it concluded that the menopause comments alone did not create a hostile or degrading work environment under the law.
This case highlights the importance of training managers to discuss sensitive health issues respectfully and to handle complaints fairly without retaliatory actions.
Should your managers require training to help increase confidence in managing such difficult conversations, contact enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk to discuss about our training options.
Are performance reviews of value to your business?
A new study shows that performance reviews are often making employees feel less motivated instead of helping them improve.
Researchers surveyed 2,000 UK office workers and found that:
- 35% felt less positive about their job after their most recent performance review.
- Only 16% felt more positive about their future at work.
- A separate poll found that 25% of employees felt unmotivated after their latest review.
Experts believe that traditional yearly appraisals are no longer effective because workplaces change quickly and employees need regular feedback, not comments about work done many months ago.
Many workers also want to understand:
- How their skills are valued.
- What career opportunities are available.
- Whether their employer is investing in their development.
It was suggested the problem is often with how reviews are conducted rather than the reviews themselves. Research evidenced that 82% of managers receive no formal management or leadership training before becoming managers. Many managers are expected to give feedback and support employee development without being taught how to do it well. Some managers now use artificial intelligence (AI) to help write reviews, but experts warn that AI should support managers, not replace human judgement.
Performance reviews can be improved by having regular conversations about performance instead of relying on annual reviews; setting SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound); using fair and consistent scoring systems if relevant and provide training to managers to give clear, useful feedback. Ensure the separation of discussions about career development from discussions about pay and bonuses plus ensure reviews are fair and free from conflicts of interest.
Performance reviews should be an ongoing process, not a once-a-year event. Employees benefit most from regular, meaningful feedback, and managers need proper training to provide it effectively.
Should you wish to discuss how performance reviews can be implemented into your business, contact us on 0800 9995 121.
Tribunal awards compensation following workplace complaint and resignation
An employment tribunal has awarded more than £22,000 to a former employee who successfully argued that she suffered victimisation after raising concerns about comments made by her manager regarding menopause.
The claimant brought claims including harassment related to sex, victimisation and constructive dismissal following a series of workplace events that occurred during 2024. The award included compensation for injury to feelings, loss of earnings, pension losses, interest and a basic award for unfair dismissal.
The case centred on comments made by a manager after the employee briefly lost her train of thought during a workplace conversation. The remarks suggested that menopause might explain her behaviour. At the time, the employee had recently undergone medical investigations relating to perimenopause, which had concluded she was not experiencing the condition.
The employee raised a formal grievance and reported feeling distressed by the situation. She also alleged that relationships at work deteriorated after the complaint was submitted. Concerns were raised regarding changes to her working arrangements, management interactions and subsequent performance management measures.
Following these developments, the employee resigned, arguing that the employer had failed to address her concerns adequately and that trust and confidence in the employment relationship had broken down.
Evidence presented during the tribunal hearing indicated that menopause was a topic that had been openly discussed within the workplace due to awareness efforts and conversations involving other members of staff.
Although the tribunal described the manager’s comments as inappropriate and lacking sensitivity, it determined that they did not amount to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act 2010. In reaching this conclusion, the panel considered the context in which the remarks were made, the workplace culture and the absence of any intention to humiliate or belittle the employee.
The tribunal found that the comments were insufficient to create an intimidating, hostile or degrading working environment or to violate the employee’s dignity as required by the legal test for harassment. However, the tribunal found that aspects of the employer’s response to the grievance process and subsequent treatment of the employee amounted to unlawful victimisation. It concluded that these actions contributed to the circumstances leading to her resignation.
The case highlights the distinction between harassment and victimisation under employment law. Conduct that falls short of the legal threshold for harassment may still expose an employer to liability if an employee is treated unfavourably after raising concerns or exercising workplace rights.
The case also serves as a reminder that employers should ensure managers are properly trained when discussing sensitive health-related issues. Open conversations about topics such as menopause can be beneficial, but they should be handled with professionalism, respect and appropriate awareness of individual circumstances.
Another key lesson concerns the handling of grievances. Employers should investigate complaints thoroughly, communicate clearly with affected employees and take care to avoid any actions that could be perceived as retaliation following the raising of concerns. Should you wish to discuss training for managers, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.
Government consults on new workplace rights for unpaid carers
The UK government has launched a consultation on potential reforms aimed at improving workplace protections for employees who provide unpaid care for family members or others with long-term health conditions.
The review will examine whether existing carers’ leave arrangements are meeting the needs of working carers and explore additional measures that could help people remain in employment while managing significant caring responsibilities.
Among the options under consideration are the introduction of paid carers’ leave, enhanced job protection for employees who take extended periods away from work to provide care, and updated guidance to help employers and workers better understand their rights and responsibilities.
One proposal would create a return-to-work entitlement similar to protections already available in other forms of statutory family leave. The aim would be to give employees greater confidence that they can step away from work during periods of intensive caring without jeopardising their future employment.
The consultation is also seeking views on how any future paid leave scheme might operate. Possible approaches range from earnings-related payments to a fixed-rate statutory payment model. Officials are inviting feedback on what level of support would be most effective while remaining practical for employers and public finances.
In addition, the government is considering whether further protections should be introduced for parents caring for children with serious medical conditions. The review will assess whether existing employment rights provide sufficient support during periods of prolonged treatment, hospitalisation or end-of-life care.
While many employers recognise the potential benefits of supporting carers, some businesses may seek further clarity regarding eligibility criteria, leave duration, funding arrangements and operational impacts. Smaller employers, in particular, may need guidance on balancing workforce planning with additional employee entitlements.
The consultation follows the introduction of statutory carers’ leave rights, which currently allow eligible employees to take a limited amount of unpaid leave each year to provide or arrange care for a dependant. The government is now considering whether further reforms are required to strengthen support and improve employment outcomes for carers.
Should you wish to discuss carers’ leave, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.
Employers prepare for potential workforce reductions amid economic pressures
A growing number of UK employers are considering workforce reductions as they contend with rising operating costs, economic uncertainty and changing employment obligations.
Research involving more than 1,000 senior business leaders found that approximately one-third of organisations expect to undertake redundancy programmes during the coming year. The data also suggested that larger employers are considerably more likely than smaller businesses to anticipate job losses, reflecting the scale of cost pressures facing major organisations.
The findings emerge at a time when significant changes to redundancy legislation are on the horizon. Current rules require collective consultation where an employer proposes a substantial number of redundancies at a single establishment within a defined period. Planned reforms under forthcoming employment legislation are expected to expand employer obligations and increase the consequences of failing to comply.
Among the proposed changes is a substantial increase in the financial penalties available to employment tribunals where collective consultation duties are breached. Employers may also be required to assess redundancy numbers across their wider organisation rather than considering individual sites in isolation when determining whether consultation thresholds have been met.
The prospect of stricter compliance requirements may be influencing workforce planning decisions for some organisations. Where businesses expect future restructuring exercises to become more complex or legally challenging, some may choose to review staffing arrangements sooner rather than later.
Businesses are also facing a more demanding employment relations environment. The expansion of employee rights, increasing compliance obligations and the growing complexity of workplace policies can require significant management time and resources.
Industries such as retail, hospitality and manufacturing are often viewed as particularly vulnerable to workforce reductions when economic conditions become challenging.
Where redundancies cannot be avoided, employers are encouraged to manage the process carefully, communicate openly and provide appropriate support to affected employees. Some organisations may also choose to offer enhanced redundancy packages where financially viable, helping individuals transition to new opportunities while demonstrating a responsible approach to workforce change. Should you wish to discuss redundancy in your organisation, contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.
Migrant worker awarded compensation after being left without work by sponsor
A UK employment tribunal has awarded compensation to a migrant worker who relocated to Britain under a sponsored work visa but was never provided with employment by the organisation that recruited him.
The worker had accepted a full-time care position and moved to the UK after receiving sponsorship under the Skilled Worker route. Although the role was advertised as a permanent position with guaranteed hours and salary, he was not allocated any shifts after arriving in the country and received no wages.
Because his immigration status was linked to his sponsoring employer, his ability to seek alternative employment was severely restricted. As a result, he spent many months without a regular income while attempting to resolve the situation with the organisation.
The tribunal found that the employer had failed to pay wages that were contractually due and had also breached other employment obligations. Compensation was awarded for unpaid earnings, accrued holiday entitlement and failures relating to employment documentation and workplace procedures. The employer was also ordered to contribute towards the claimant’s legal costs.
Evidence presented during the hearing showed that the worker had completed the visa process, travelled to the UK and attended onboarding arrangements shortly after arrival. Despite repeatedly contacting the employer to ask when work would begin, he received little clarity regarding his employment status.
The organisation maintained that additional training requirements had prevented the employee from starting work. However, the tribunal concluded that these requirements did not lawfully prevent the employment relationship from commencing. It found that the worker was available and willing to perform his duties and that the lack of work resulted solely from the employer’s failure to provide it.
The tribunal rejected arguments that the employment contract had never taken effect. Instead, it determined that employment began once the worker had arrived in the UK, held the necessary immigration permission and was available to undertake the role. The employment relationship continued until he eventually secured sponsorship with another employer and started a new position.
The case also serves as a reminder that sponsored workers are entitled to the same fundamental employment protections as other employees. Where an employer withholds work from an individual who is ready and able to perform their duties, significant liability may arise, particularly when the worker has relocated internationally in reliance on the employment offer.
For employers operating sponsorship programmes, careful workforce planning, accurate recruitment practices and ongoing compliance monitoring remain essential to reducing both legal and commercial risk. Should you wish to discuss this, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.
Probationary periods and reviews – are you ready?
Probationary periods play an important role in the employment relationship. They give organisations an opportunity to evaluate whether a new hire is performing effectively, adapting to the role and working well within the business. At the same time, employees can decide whether the position, culture and expectations are right for them.
Proposed changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025 are likely to make probation management more significant than ever. From 1 January 2027, employees are expected to gain the right to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim after six months’ service, rather than waiting until they have completed two years’ service. In addition, the planned removal of the compensation cap for unfair dismissal claims could increase the financial exposure for employers.
One issue employers should pay close attention to is the timing of dismissal decisions. Eligibility for ordinary unfair dismissal protection is determined by an employee’s length of service at the effective date of termination. Under the new framework, anyone with at least six months’ service by 1 January 2027 could potentially qualify for protection, including existing employees who have not yet reached two years’ service.
In practice, decisions may need to be made earlier than employers expect. Once an employee has completed one month of service, statutory minimum notice of one week must generally be included when calculating qualifying service. Delaying a decision until the last moment could therefore unintentionally push an employee over the relevant threshold.
If an unfair dismissal claim is brought, employers are likely to need evidence that the dismissal was based on a fair reason, such as capability, conduct or another substantial reason, and that a fair procedure was followed in line with the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Many probationary processes fail not because policies are absent, but because managers struggle to apply them effectively. Common problems include:
- Competing workload pressures
- Vague performance expectations
- Reluctance to have difficult conversations
- Inconsistent communication
- Insufficient written records
Employment contracts should clearly state the length of the probation period and explain the rules that apply before, during and after probation.
Good probation management begins before the employee starts work. Accurate job descriptions, thorough recruitment processes and active involvement from hiring managers can all reduce the likelihood of a poor hiring decision. Effective processes typically include:
- Defined objectives
- Regular check-ins
- Formal review meetings
- Documented feedback
- Clear action plans where concerns arise
If probation needs to be extended, the extension should be confirmed in writing before the original probation end date, with review dates and expected improvements clearly set out.
Probation periods are both a management tool and an employer responsibility. If the Employment Rights Act 2025 is implemented as expected, employers will have less room for error when dealing with new starters.
Clear policies, effective onboarding, regular reviews and confident, well-trained managers will become increasingly important in reducing legal risk and making fair, timely decisions. Should you wish to discuss this, contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.
What are the reasons for losing at the employment tribunal? Guidance for employers
Employment tribunals are legal forums that resolve disputes between employers and employees concerning workplace rights and obligations. They also handle cases involving breaches of statutory entitlements designed to protect employees from unfair treatment.
To minimise the risk of legal action, it’s essential to follow a fair and transparent process when terminating employment:
Typical claims brought before employment tribunals include unfair dismissal, discrimination, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims. The Employment Rights Act sets out specific grounds for lawful dismissal and details the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees.
One of the key considerations in assessing whether a dismissal was fair is whether the employer acted reasonably and consistently. It’s also important that the employee was treated in a manner comparable to others in similar circumstances.
The risk of financial loss and harm to a business’s reputation highlights the need for strong HR practices and careful record-keeping to help prevent issues from escalating to this point. Keeping detailed records of all employee interactions is crucial. This includes logging meetings, disciplinary steps, and any significant verbal exchanges. Well-structured and complete documentation can be an asset if you’re involved in an employment tribunal. It helps show the steps you’ve taken and supports that your actions were fair and appropriate. Ultimately, the more documentation you have to support your decisions, the better positioned you’ll be in any legal dispute.
Make sure that all employees are aware of the policies and procedures from day one. You can do this by providing a comprehensive employee handbook that outlines company policies, expectations, and procedures.
Conduct regular training sessions or briefings to keep employees and managers updated on any changes in policies or new employment laws. This ensures everyone is on the same page and reduces misunderstandings.
Whether dealing with a new apprentice or the managing director, everyone should be treated according to the same set of rules. Maintain consistency to ensure fairness.
If an issue arises, address it quickly. Early intervention can prevent small problems from becoming major disputes.
By following these tips, you are more equipped to be able to foster a fair and consistent workplace, as well as reduce the risk of potential claims of unfair treatment. However, if you would like more information on how 121 HR Solutions can assist with applying appropriate policies and procedure contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.
Do employers have to advertise a vacancy?
A question we are often asked is whether there is a legal requirement to advertise a vacancy before appointing someone into a role.
The simple answer is no.
In the UK, employers are generally free to appoint someone to a position without advertising the role internally or externally. There is no legal requirement to run a competitive recruitment process, accept applications, or conduct interviews before making an appointment.
However, just because you can appoint someone without advertising a vacancy does not always mean you should. The first thing employers should consider is whether they have a recruitment policy in place. If your organisation has established procedures covering recruitment and selection, these should be followed consistently. Failing to follow your own policies can create employee relations issues and, in some circumstances, increase legal risk.
Even where there is no policy requirement, advertising a vacancy often remains best practice.
One of the key reasons is fairness and transparency. When roles are filled without any form of recruitment process, employees may perceive decisions as predetermined or based on favouritism. This can quickly damage morale and create challenges from existing employees who feel they were denied an opportunity to apply.
There are also equality considerations. While the Equality Act 2010 does not require employers to advertise vacancies, recruitment decisions must not discriminate against individuals because of a protected characteristic such as age, disability, race, religion, sex or pregnancy.
Advertising roles more widely can help demonstrate that opportunities are accessible to a broad range of candidates and reduce the risk of allegations that certain groups have been excluded from consideration.
For small employers, there will often be genuine business reasons for making direct appointments. This may include promoting an existing employee, filling a specialist role quickly or recruiting someone already known to the business.
Where this happens, employers should ensure they can clearly explain the rationale for the decision and demonstrate that it was based on legitimate business reasons rather than personal preference.
Ultimately, there is no legal obligation to advertise a vacancy. However, a transparent recruitment process will often provide access to a wider talent pool, support diversity and reduce the risk of future complaints.
As with many employment matters, the legal risk is rarely the decision itself, it is being unable to explain how and why that decision was reached.
If you have any concerns about this subject contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss.
Think before you hit “send”
Many managers assume that internal emails are private conversations. In reality, they should be written with the expectation that they may one day be read by the employee concerned, an Employment Tribunal, a solicitor, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), or all three.
One of the biggest misconceptions in the workplace is that employees will never see internal discussions about them. However, under UK data protection legislation, employees have the right to submit a Subject Access Request (DSAR), requiring their employer to disclose personal data held about them.
What many employers don’t realise is that this can include emails, meeting notes, messages, investigation records, grievance documentation and internal correspondence where the employee is the subject of discussion.
This is where problems often arise.
A manager may send what they believe is a harmless email expressing frustration about an employee, questioning their motives, speculating about sickness absence, or sharing a personal opinion about performance. Whilst these comments may feel informal at the time, they can become highly problematic if later disclosed.
Personal data is not limited to personnel files or HR records. Emails discussing an employee’s conduct, attendance, capability, attitude or workplace relationships can all potentially fall within the scope of a Subject Access Request.
Employers are often surprised when an employee receives copies of internal emails containing comments such as:
“I think they’re playing the system.”
“I don’t believe they’re really ill.”
“They’re more trouble than they’re worth.”
“I think we should get rid of them.”
Even where no legal claim follows, these types of comments can seriously damage trust and confidence in the employment relationship. In more serious cases, they can create evidence that supports allegations of discrimination, victimisation, predetermined disciplinary outcomes or unfair treatment.
This is particularly important when dealing with sensitive issues such as sickness absence, disability, grievances, disciplinary matters or flexible working requests. Decisions should always be based on evidence, not assumptions or personal opinion.
For SMEs, the practical lesson is simple. If you would be uncomfortable reading an email aloud in an Employment Tribunal, it probably should not be written in the first place.
If you have any concerns about this subject contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss.
0800 9995 121 
enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk
Follow us
Connect with us
Like us
iPhone App
Client Vacancies
121 HR Blog