From April 2027, employees will have a new legal right to take up to two weeks of unpaid leave following the death of a close family member or certain types of pregnancy loss.

The new entitlement will be available from the first day of employment, meaning employees will not need to have worked for their employer for a minimum period before they qualify.

For businesses, the change means existing bereavement and compassionate leave policies may need updating before the new rules come into effect.

The new right will cover the death of certain close family members, including a:

• spouse or partner
• parent
• adult child
• sibling

Certain step-family, half-family, adoptive, foster and kinship care relationships will also be included. The changes will also provide greater protection following pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. This will include circumstances such as miscarriage, termination of pregnancy and unsuccessful IVF embryo transfer.

Eligible employees will be able to take up to two weeks of unpaid leave. Importantly, employees will not necessarily have to take all of the leave at once.

The entitlement can be used as individual days, giving people greater flexibility over when they take time away from work. Employees will have up to 56 weeks following the loss in which to use their entitlement. This recognises that grief does not follow a fixed timetable. Some employees may need time away immediately, while others may find they need additional time at a later date.

Employees will not be required to provide evidence of the bereavement or pregnancy loss in order to take the statutory leave. They will also have legal protection against being treated unfairly or dismissed because they have taken, or attempted to take, the leave. Further guidance is expected before the new rules take effect.

Although the changes do not take effect until April 2027, businesses have an opportunity to prepare well in advance. A sensible starting point is to review existing bereavement, compassionate leave and parental bereavement policies. Employers should check who currently qualifies for leave, how much time is available, whether it is paid or unpaid and what employees are expected to do when requesting it.

Businesses that already offer more generous bereavement leave can continue to do so. However, policies should make it clear which part of the leave is the employee’s legal entitlement and which additional benefits are provided by the employer. For example, an organisation might choose to provide paid compassionate leave even though the new statutory entitlement is unpaid.

Updating a policy is only part of the preparation. Managers are likely to be the first people employees speak to following a bereavement, so they need to know how to respond appropriately.

The initial conversation does not need to be complicated. Managers should acknowledge what has happened, explain the leave available and establish what communication the employee would prefer while they are away. They should also ask how, or whether, the employee would like colleagues to be informed.

The aim should be simple: when an employee experiences a significant loss, they should understand what time away from work is available without having to navigate an unnecessarily difficult process at an already challenging time. Should you require support to update policies, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.

• Posted on October 6th, 2026

An employee has been awarded more than £31,000 after an employment tribunal found that prolonged problems with her manager ultimately left her feeling unable to continue in her job.

The employee worked as a lead auditor and was contracted to work normal office hours. In practice, the tribunal heard that she regularly worked significantly longer days. On some occasions, she began work as early as 5.30am and did not finish until the early hours of the following morning.

Despite the pressure, her previous performance reviews had consistently rated her as a solid performer. The tribunal also heard that she continued working during periods of serious physical illness, including while she was in hospital, because of the amount of work she was expected to complete.

Her workload also affected her ability to take holidays. Work was scheduled during school holiday periods, making it difficult for her to take annual leave at the same time as her children.

Over several years, the relationship between the employee and her manager deteriorated. The tribunal heard allegations that the manager dismissed or ignored concerns raised by the employee, excluded her from meetings and took credit for some of her work.

Her performance rating was also changed from “solid performer” to “developing in role”. When she questioned the change, she was told the decision had come from HR.

There were also disagreements over the quality and accuracy of work within the team. On one occasion, the employee challenged figures provided by her manager because they differed from other calculations. The tribunal accepted evidence that the manager responded in a dismissive and belittling way.

As the situation began affecting her wellbeing, the employee asked to reduce her working week from five days to three. The request was refused because of workload and staffing pressures. The situation became more difficult when a colleague left. It took several months to fill the vacancy, and the employee believed the eventual replacement did not have the necessary experience for the role. This increased her workload further and left her feeling undermined.

The employee eventually went on sick leave and raised her concerns with HR. She later resigned without having another job lined up.

The employer encouraged her to attend an occupational health assessment and make a formal complaint before leaving. The occupational health assessment linked her difficulties to stress at work and indicated that her wellbeing was unlikely to improve unless the workplace issues were addressed.

After considering that advice, the employee decided to continue with her resignation because she did not believe returning to the same working relationship would allow her health to improve..

In this case, the tribunal looked at the overall pattern of behaviour rather than treating each incident separately. It found that the employee had been expected to work excessive hours over a long period, had worked despite serious illness, had struggled to take annual leave and had experienced repeated problems with her manager.

The tribunal concluded that the situation had become serious enough to damage the trust and confidence that should exist between an employer and employee. Importantly, the tribunal also accepted that the employee resigned because of these circumstances.

The employee was awarded a total of £31,725 made up of £6,154 as a basic award and £25,571 in compensation.

The case is a useful reminder that workplace problems do not have to involve one dramatic incident to become serious. A pattern of excessive workloads, consistently long hours, poor management behaviour and ignored concerns can build over time.

Managers should pay particular attention when an employee says their workload or working relationship is affecting their health. Requests for reduced hours, periods of sickness and occupational health recommendations should not be viewed in isolation as they may be signs of a wider workplace problem that needs addressing.

Should you require support with a performance issue, contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.

• Posted on October 6th, 2026

The number of employees contacting Acas about workplace bullying and harassment has fallen slightly but employers would be unwise to assume that means the problem is disappearing.

Recent figures show that Acas received 8,871 enquiries about bullying and harassment during the first six months of 2026, down from 9,213 over the same period in 2025.  Sexual harassment enquiries, meanwhile, were almost unchanged, at 1,808 compared with 1,806 during the first half of last year.

So, while the headline figures might appear mildly encouraging, there are still significant numbers of employees seeking outside help about their experiences at work.

And with important changes to harassment law taking effect shortly, this certainly isn’t the time for employers to take their eye off the issue.

From 30 October 2026, employers will face strengthened responsibilities under the Employment Rights Act 2025. The existing duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment will become a requirement to take all reasonable steps.

That small additional word is important. Rather than simply being able to point to some preventative measures, employers will need to consider all the steps it would be reasonable for their particular organisation to take.

The changes will also introduce liability for harassment by third parties, such as customers, clients, contractors, service users and members of the public, unless the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent it.

For businesses where employees regularly deal with people outside the organisation, that’s an important extension of the risks that need to be considered.

The direction of travel is increasingly towards preventing harassment before it happens, rather than simply having a procedure for dealing with complaints afterwards. That means employers should be looking at where the risks exist within their own organisation.

Are employees regularly working alone with customers or clients? Do staff have to deal with difficult members of the public? Are there work events involving alcohol? Do employees travel or stay away overnight for work? Are there particular teams, roles or working arrangements where the risks might be higher?

Once the risks have been identified, employers can consider what practical measures could reduce them.

Depending on the organisation, that might include updating policies, improving reporting arrangements, providing appropriate training, setting clearer expectations for customers or clients, reviewing contractual terms, improving security arrangements or making sure managers know how to respond when concerns are raised.

Importantly, simply having an anti-harassment policy sitting in the staff handbook is unlikely to be enough on its own. Employees should know how to raise a concern and ideally have more than one route available to them – particularly where the person they would ordinarily report to might be involved in the problem.

Managers also need to understand their responsibilities. A carefully written policy is of limited value if a manager dismisses a concern as “banter”, fails to escalate it or simply doesn’t know what to do next. Training should therefore be practical and relevant to the risks employees and managers actually encounter.

With the law changing on 30 October, now is a good time to review harassment risks, policies, reporting arrangements and training and to ask whether the organisation can genuinely demonstrate that it is taking all reasonable steps to protect its people.  If you would like support with this, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.

• Posted on October 6th, 2026

Technical knowledge might help someone get through the door, but employers are increasingly recognising that it is the less technical, more human skills that can make the biggest difference to how well people perform at work.

Communication, problem solving, organisation and the ability to work effectively with others all play an important part in keeping a workplace running smoothly. And new research suggests that employers are finding these skills increasingly difficult to come by.

Recent research from City & Guilds, involving 908 HR professionals and line managers, found that 38% of UK businesses believed shortages in these types of skills were holding back productivity and growth. Almost two thirds also reported that candidates with the soft skills they needed were becoming harder to find.

A lack of technical knowledge can create an obvious skills gap. The effects of weaker interpersonal or organisational skills can be less immediately noticeable, but they can still have a considerable impact. Poor communication can result in instructions being misunderstood or important information not being shared. Weak problem-solving skills can mean relatively straightforward issues take longer to resolve. Poor organisation can lead to missed deadlines, duplicated work and competing priorities.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, employers placed considerable value on these skills. Almost three quarters of those surveyed believed soft skills were more important to workplace success than technical abilities.

The research also looked at the experiences of more than 1,000 young people aged between 18 and 24. Only 40% said they felt completely confident communicating with people face to face. Confidence was particularly low among young people who were not in education, employment or training.

However, employers should be careful not to assume that confidence during recruitment is the same thing as capability at work. A nervous interviewee may develop into an excellent communicator once they understand their role, know their colleagues and have had an opportunity to build experience.

There were some encouraging findings too. Apprentices were the group most likely to say they felt completely confident communicating face to face, at 48%, and almost three quarters had received specific employability skills training.

The good news for employers is that communication, problem solving and other workplace skills aren’t necessarily fixed qualities that somebody either has or doesn’t have. For employers, the message is relatively simple: don’t concentrate exclusively on what somebody knows. Think about how they communicate, collaborate, organise themselves and respond when things don’t go according to plan.

And where those skills need some work, giving employees opportunities to practise them may be every bit as important as sending them on a training course.  121 HR Solutions regularly runs workshops for managers in which we focus on soft skills and communication. Should you wish to find out more, contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.

• Posted on October 5th, 2026

“Risk assessment” can sound like one of those health and safety phrases that means forms, folders and lots of paperwork. But a good risk assessment is simpler than that. At heart, it’s about asking: what could cause harm here, who might be affected, and what can we reasonably do to reduce the risk?

Done properly, risk assessments help employers spot problems before somebody gets hurt – rather than simply documenting them afterwards.

Start by looking for hazards. These might be obvious physical risks, such as machinery, vehicles, working at height, trailing cables or manual handling. But employers should think more broadly too. Depending on the workplace, risks might arise from chemicals, noise, lone working, computer use, violence or aggression, or work-related stress.

It’s also important to think about who could be affected. That doesn’t just mean employees. Contractors, visitors and members of the public may also need to be considered, as well as individuals who might be particularly vulnerable to a particular risk.

Once you’ve identified a hazard, think about how likely it is to cause harm and how serious that harm could be. Then look at the controls you already have in place. Can the risk be removed altogether? If not, can you reduce it – perhaps by changing the way the work is carried out, providing suitable equipment, introducing safer procedures or giving employees appropriate information and training?

The aim isn’t necessarily to eliminate every conceivable risk. It’s about identifying sensible and proportionate measures to protect people. For employers who are required to record their risk assessments, the document should be something people can actually understand and use.

There’s little benefit in producing pages of generic wording simply to show that a risk assessment exists. Record the significant hazards, the people who may be affected, the controls in place and any further action that needs to be taken. If further action is required, make it clear who is responsible for doing it and when it should be completed.

The people doing the job every day will often have the best understanding of where the risks really are. Talk to employees and, where appropriate, their representatives. They may identify practical issues that aren’t obvious to someone carrying out an assessment from behind a desk.

It also helps make health and safety something people are actively involved in, rather than something that is simply done to them.

Don’t forget to review it

A risk assessment shouldn’t be completed once and then forgotten about.

Review it when there are significant changes, perhaps new equipment, different working practices or a change in premises and if there is reason to think the existing assessment is no longer adequate. An accident or near miss may also be a good indication that something needs another look.

Ultimately, a good risk assessment doesn’t need to be complicated. Identify the hazards, understand the risks, put sensible controls in place and keep checking that they work. That approach is not only good health and safety practice, it helps create a workplace where preventing harm is part of the way the business operates. Should you be concerned that your business requires a health and safety review, contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.

• Posted on October 5th, 2026

You interview three candidates for a vacancy. One stands out, you offer them the job and let the other two know they have been unsuccessful. Straightforward until six weeks later, one of the unsuccessful candidates challenges the decision and alleges that they were not appointed because of a protected characteristic.

Could you demonstrate why you chose the successful candidate?

Interviews don’t need to be overly formal, but there should be some record of how the decision was reached. If there are no interview notes or assessment records, you may be relying entirely on the interviewer’s memory.

What did each candidate say? Who demonstrated the strongest experience? Which candidate best met the essential requirements? Why, specifically, was one person selected over another?

Before interviewing, identify the key skills, experience and requirements of the role. Prepare your core questions around those requirements and use a simple assessment sheet to record each candidate’s responses and how they performed against the criteria.

For example, if supervisory experience is essential, assess each candidate against it. If customer communication is important, ask a question that allows each person to demonstrate that skill.

The purpose isn’t to turn recruitment into a box-ticking exercise. It is to make sure that your eventual decision is based on objective, job-related criteria and that you have a record showing that. Interview notes should be factual and relevant to the job.  Comments on how they demonstrate managing a difficult customer complaint are more useful that comments on having a ‘‘young family may struggle with the hours”.

Remember that recruitment documentation may later need to be produced as evidence. Write your notes on the basis that someone other than you may eventually read them.

If your recruitment process currently consists of interviewing candidates and then having a conversation about “who we liked best”, you must introduce a simple interview assessment. Agree the criteria, ask consistent core questions, record the answers, assess candidates against the requirements of the job and document why the successful candidate was selected.

Most recruitment decisions will never be tested, however your interview assessment could be the evidence that you may need to rely on.

If you have any concerns about this subject contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss.

• Posted on September 30th, 2026

“But if we let them do that, everyone else will want it.” It is a concern from clients we regularly hear when discussing reasonable adjustments. One employee asks for different hours. Another needs more frequent breaks. Someone asks to work from home, use a chair where colleagues normally stand, or have instructions provided differently.

The immediate concern can be how other employees will react. But when disability is involved, treating everyone the same is not necessarily fair and it is not always what the law requires. Requiring employees to work under exactly the same conditions might look like equal treatment.

It could place the disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage. For example, two employees on an eight-hour shift, and one can stand comfortably and the other is in chronic pain after 20 mins due to a health condition. Allowing that employee to use a chair or stool doesn’t necessarily give them preferential treatment. It may simply remove some of the disadvantage created by their disability.

That is the purpose of a reasonable adjustment. Other employees do not automatically become entitled to the same arrangement simply because a reasonable adjustment has been agreed for a disabled colleague. The question should always be is this employee experiencing a disadvantage because of their disability, and is there a reasonable change we could make to reduce or remove it?

What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances, including the employee’s needs, the role, how effective the proposed adjustment would be, its practicality and the resources available to the employer.

Sometimes the adjustment requested won’t be workable, but there may be another way of achieving the same objective.

The important thing is to properly consider it rather than dismissing the request simply because other employees are treated differently.

Depending on the employee, their disability and the job, an adjustment could include:

• changing working hours, shift patterns or the timing of breaks;
• allowing someone to sit rather than stand for prolonged periods;
• providing specialist equipment or an adapted workstation;
• reducing sensory triggers such as noise or lighting;
• making physical changes to the workplace.

Something as simple as providing written instructions rather than relying on verbal instructions could make a significant difference to one employee without fundamentally changing how the business operates.

Managers should still have a clear process for considering requests, understand why an adjustment is being requested and record what has been agreed. A reasonable adjustment isn’t a favour, perk or special treatment. It is about removing or reducing a disadvantage that a disabled employee would otherwise experience at work.

If you have any concerns about this subject contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss.

• Posted on September 28th, 2026

Swearing on a construction site is not unusual. But does that mean an employee can use offensive language towards their manager and then argue that it is simply normal workplace banter? A recent Employment Tribunal case provides a useful reminder that context matters.

An electrician’s mate with more than five years’ service was dismissed for gross misconduct following a disagreement about work he had been instructed to carry out.

The employee had agreed to erect scaffolding but objected to carrying out other aspects of the job, saying they were not part of his remit. A series of inappropriate WhatsApp and voice messages followed, and the planned customer job could not go ahead.

He was subsequently asked to attend a meeting with the Managing Director, where the employer had not initially intended to dismiss him. The intention was to understand what had happened and seek an apology, unfortunately the situation escalated.

The Tribunal found that the employee continued to maintain that he would decide which duties he carried out and, when instructed to apologise and undertake work allocated by the company, responded with further offensive language before walking out of the meeting.

The employer concluded that his behaviour had fundamentally damaged the employment relationship and dismissed him for gross misconduct.

The employee argued that dismissal was too severe and that this type of language was normal within the construction industry.

The Tribunal did not accept that as justification. The important issue wasn’t simply whether swearing could sometimes be heard on a building site, it was how the language was being used and what was happening around it. This wasn’t an isolated swear word during an everyday conversation between colleagues.

It formed part of a wider situation involving refusal to carry out allocated work, inappropriate communications, a failure to show remorse and what the Tribunal considered serious insubordination.

The employee had worked for the company for more than five years and had no previous written warnings. That did not prevent the employer from dismissing him for gross misconduct. Where conduct is sufficiently serious, dismissal without previous warnings can potentially be reasonable.

In this case, the Tribunal acknowledged that some employers might have chosen a lesser sanction. The question was not whether dismissal was the only reasonable response, but whether it fell within the range of responses a reasonable employer could make.

If certain language has been openly used and tolerated throughout a workplace for years, it may be difficult to suddenly treat an isolated example of the same language as gross misconduct without considering that history. But there is a significant difference between general workplace language and language used aggressively towards a colleague or manager, particularly where it accompanies a refusal to follow a reasonable management instruction.

Make sure your disciplinary policy gives clear examples of conduct that could potentially amount to gross misconduct, including serious insubordination and inappropriate or abusive behaviour.

Long service and a clean disciplinary record are relevant considerations, but they do not make an employee immune from dismissal where conduct is sufficiently serious.

If you have any concerns about this subject contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss.

• Posted on September 28th, 2026

It is an easy mistake to make, but potentially an expensive one. An employee takes a company van to the petrol station and accidentally fills a diesel vehicle with petrol, or vice versa. The vehicle may need recovered, the fuel system drained and, if it has been driven, there could be further damage.

For the employer, the immediate reaction might be “They made the mistake, so we’ll deduct the cost from their wages.” But before doing that, check what your contract and policies say. Employers cannot simply deduct money from an employee’s wages because the employee has caused the business a financial loss.

Generally, there needs to be a lawful basis for the deduction. For example, the employee’s contract may specifically allow deductions for damage, loss or costs caused by their actions, or the employee may have previously agreed in writing to the relevant deduction.

If your contract or policy does not give you the right to make that deduction, taking the money directly from their wages could result in an unlawful deduction from wages claim.

You may have a detailed company vehicle policy covering driving licences, speeding fines, accidents, vehicle checks and personal use, but nothing explaining what happens if an employee causes avoidable costs through misfuelling, negligence or damage. A vehicle policy could make clear the employee’s responsibilities when using a company vehicle and, where appropriate, the circumstances in which the business may seek to recover costs.

An informal conversation, reminder or additional instruction may be sufficient for a genuine first mistake. Where there is evidence of negligence, repeated incidents or a failure to follow clear company procedures, a more formal response may be appropriate. You might conclude that an employee has failed to take reasonable care of a company vehicle and that this should be addressed under your Disciplinary procedure.

An employee causing the cost does not automatically mean you can take it from their wages. Check what your contract and policies allow before making any deduction, and if they don’t cover the situation, review them for the future.

Contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss any further queries you may have on this subject.

• Posted on September 28th, 2026

Fixed-term contracts are useful where a business needs someone for a defined period, perhaps to cover maternity leave, complete a project or provide additional temporary support.

But from 1 January 2027, employers using them will need to think more carefully about what happens when they come to an end. From this date, employees will be able to claim ordinary unfair dismissal after six months’ service, rather than having to wait two years.

This is particularly relevant if you regularly employ people on six or 12-month fixed-term contracts. You may have agreed from the outset that someone will be employed for 12 months. However, when you decide not to renew their contract at the end of that period, this is still treated as a dismissal for employment law purposes.

From January 2027, more fixed-term employees will therefore have sufficient service to potentially challenge whether that dismissal was fair. That doesn’t mean you cannot bring a fixed-term contract to an end. It means you should understand and document why it is ending and follow an appropriate process.

Does that mean it’s a redundancy? Thankfully, no – not automatically.

The fact that a fixed-term contract has reached its end date does not, on its own, make the employee redundant. You need to look at the reason the employment is ending. For example, someone may have been employed specifically to cover maternity leave, and the permanent employee is now returning. Another employee may have been recruited to work on a particular project and that project has now finished.

In other circumstances, the work itself may genuinely have reduced or disappeared. In that case, there could be a redundancy situation.

It is also important not to confuse the change to unfair dismissal protection with entitlement to statutory redundancy pay. The two-year qualifying period for statutory redundancy pay is not reducing to six months. An employee will still need at least two years’ continuous service to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment.

This means that, from January 2027, an employee with 12 months’ service could have sufficient service to challenge whether their dismissal was unfair but would not have sufficient service to receive statutory redundancy pay.

The important question is therefore not simply, “Has their fixed-term contract ended?” It is, “Why are we not continuing their employment?” Before a fixed-term contract expires, review why the employee was originally recruited and what the position looks like now.

If the original temporary requirement has ended, document that. If the work is continuing but you do not intend to retain the employee, understand why. If the role or work has genuinely disappeared or reduced, consider whether you are dealing with a redundancy situation.

You should then speak to the employee, explain what is happening and follow the appropriate process before confirming the end of their employment.

Contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss any further queries you may have on this subject.

• Posted on September 28th, 2026