What's new in employment law: March 2026

In a regular monthly article, we review the major employment law developments from the previous month to bring you up-to-date. We cover interesting recent cases, legislative developments and other changes in this area.

Please note: this article is up-to-date as at 28 February 2026. Employment law changes very quickly and our next article will include further updates.

Case updates

Our review this month covers four cases. In Mulumba v Partners Group (UK) Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal looked at whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had correctly refused an appellant an extension of time to appeal against two employment tribunal (ET) decisions. Our second case is Sabourin v BT Group plc, where the EAT had to decide if the ET was wrong not to consider whether the employer's failure to take account of the employee's performance in the two weeks after he was given a final written warning affected the fairness of his dismissal. Next we turn to Lamb v Teva UK Ltd. The issue here was whether procedural shortcomings in an investigation made a dismissal unfair following a potentially fatal health and safety incident. Lastly, had an ET erred by applying a 100% Polkey reduction to a compensatory award for unfair dismissal? This was the issue before the EAT in Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd.

Mulumba v Partners Group (UK) Ltd and another

Ms Mulumba brought various ET claims. She wanted to appeal against two ET decisions and lodged her first appeal at 11.49pm on the day of the deadline. It was treated as having been received the following day since it had arrived after the 4pm cut-off. She submitted the notice of appeal for her second appeal on the final day for lodging an appeal but failed to include the ET judgment, written reasons or pleadings, which she provided two days later (after the deadline had passed). She applied for an extension of time for both appeals, which was refused by the EAT. Ms Mulumba appealed to the Court of Appeal.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the EAT had correctly refused an extension of time to appeal against both ET decisions.With regard to the first appeal, Ms Mulumba had not lodged her appeal within the deadline. Looking at the second appeal, she had not substantially complied with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (the Rules), as she had failed to lodge the necessary documents and this was not a "minor error" under the Rules. Neither had she provided a good explanation for not filing the documents in time.

This decision confirms that the EAT will take a strict approach to time limits and document requirements. If a party to a case files an appeal after the deadline has passed or omits any of the necessary documents, the EAT is likely to allow the appeal to proceed only in exceptional circumstances.

Sabourin v BT Group plc

Mr Sabourin's line manager had concerns about his performance, which he sought to address informally. When this was unsuccessful, a formal performance improvement plan was put in place. There was no improvement so a first written warning was issued and this was followed by a final written warning. A final performance meeting was held two weeks later, where Mr Sabourin was given notice of dismissal for poor performance. He appealed against his dismissal, which was unsuccessful, and he brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The ET dismissed his claim, finding that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses so was fair. Mr Sabourin appealed to the EAT.

His appeal was upheld by the EAT on one narrow point. The EAT decided that the ET had failed to consider the impact on fairness of the suggestion that BT had not taken account of Mr Sabourin's performance in the two weeks after the final written warning was issued. The ET should have examined this point and the case was sent back to it to look at again.

This decision seems harsh but it reminds employers that they need to look at the whole period of performance up to the date of the decision relating to potential dismissal when deciding whether to dismiss an employee for poor performance. Failing to do this risks a finding of unfair dismissal, particularly if the employee's performance improved after the final warning.

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd

Mr Lamb was an engineering supervisor who was also a qualified electrician. He was aware of an electrical fault with a forklift charger but failed to padlock it and take it out of use, contrary to Teva's policy. When contractors came on site a few weeks later he signed a permit confirming the area was safe, despite the fault not being fixed. A contractor suffered an electric shock when he tried to use the charger, which was categorised as a potentially fatal incident. Mr Lamb was dismissed for gross misconduct. His internal appeal was not successful and he claimed unfair dismissal. His claim was dismissed by the ET, which found that his dismissal had been fair although there had been some procedural shortcomings. The flaws included: the investigating officer and the note-taker during the investigation both gave witness statements; key evidence (a written summary of CCTV footage) was disclosed less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing; and comments were made suggesting that Mr Lamb would not return to the business. He appealed, arguing that the errors in the procedure meant that the ET should have decided he had been unfairly dismissed.

The EAT upheld the ET's decision. The ET was entitled to find that the minor flaws in the investigation and disciplinary proceedings did not make the process unfair. Dual involvement as an investigator and witness does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, the late CCTV evidence did not materially alter the allegations Mr Lamb had to answer, and the comments about the outcome were unhelpful but were not made by the decision-maker.

This is a helpful decision for employers, as it shows that a dismissal may be fair despite small procedural shortcomings. However, this case turns on its facts and a situation where the investigator is a key witness, the late evidence changes the allegations and/or the decision-maker makes comments that indicate they have made a decision before the disciplinary hearing takes place may lead to a different outcome.

Pal v Accenture (UK) Ltd

Ms Pal was employed as a manager by Accenture. They had an "up or elsewhere" performance model, which meant that employees had to develop continually towards the next level. If they failed to do so, this could be treated as underperformance. Ms Pal was assessed as "not performing" and she was dismissed after two periods of sickness absence for endometriosis. She claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability. The ET held that her dismissal was procedurally unfair since it breached the applicable disciplinary and appeals policy but it applied a 100% Polkey reduction, which meant that her compensation was reduced to zero. The ET found that Ms Pal would have been fairly dismissed at the same time under a performance management policy. It rejected her disability discrimination claim, finding that her medical condition did not have continuing substantial adverse effects. Ms Pal appealed.

The appeal succeeded and the case was sent to a new ET to consider. The EAT held that the ET had been wrong to apply a 100% Polkey reduction; it had wrongly assumed that Accenture would have introduced a new performance management policy with the same process they had used and there was no evidence that this would have happened. The EAT clarified that dismissing an employee for not being ready for promotion might come within "some other substantial reason" for dismissal instead of capability, as capability only refers to the work the employee is contractually employed to do. The EAT also upheld the appeal on disability discrimination since the ET had failed to examine the effects of Ms Pal's condition on day-to-day activities.

Key points to take away from this decision include: a Polkey reduction has to be supported by evidence rather than being based on assumptions about what an employer would have done; employers must follow their own policies and procedures carefully and identify the correct reason for dismissal; and a medical condition such as endometriosis can amount to a disability, depending on the circumstances.

Legislation updates

Employment Rights Act 2025

On 3 February the Government published a timeline update, setting out the timetable for the changes that are being introduced by the ERA. It has updated it twice since then. The latest version appeared on 11 February: Implementing the Plan to Make Work Pay and Employment Rights Act - GOV.UK. Key points to note are: the provisions relating to fire and rehire have been delayed until January 2027 (from October 2026); the reduction in the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the abolition of the compensatory award cap will both come into force on 1 January 2027; the changes to ET time limits will take effect no earlier than October 2026; and the Fair Work Agency will be established on 7 April 2026.

Seven new consultations have been launched on the Act since our last article. They are:

• Fire and rehire, which was published on 4 February and focuses on which changes to benefits, expenses and shift patterns should be considered "restricted variations". It closes on 1 April: Make Work Pay: fire and rehire – changes to expenses, benefits, and shift patterns - GOV.UK
• Trade union recognition, which was published on 4 February and seeks views on the revised Code of Practice during recognition and derecognition processes and on proposals on unfair practices in electronic ballots. It also closes on 1 April: Make Work Pay: recognition code of practice and e-balloting unfair practices - GOV.UK
• Flexible working, which was published on 5 February and seeks views on a new process for employers to follow when handling flexible working requests. It closes on 30 April: Make Work Pay: improving access to flexible working - GOV.UK
• Employers' tipping policies, which was published on 5 February and focuses on ways to strengthen the law on tipping and closes on 1 April: Make Work Pay: strengthening the law on tipping - GOV.UK
• Modernising the agency work regulatory framework, which was published on 6 February and seeks views on how the regulatory framework should be adapted to account for the activities of umbrella companies and what broader changes should be considered in order to modernise the rules. It closes on 1 May: Make Work Pay: modernising the Agency Work Regulatory Framework - GOV.UK
• Protection from detriments for taking industrial action. This was published on 26 February and seeks views on the types of detriments that employers should be prohibited from imposing on workers for taking industrial action. It closes on 23 April: Make Work Pay: protection from detriments for taking industrial action - GOV.UK
• The threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations, which was published on 26 February. It seeks views on the level and methods by which the new organisation-wide threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations might be set. This consultation closes on 21 May: Make Work Pay: threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations - GOV.UK

The Government has set up a hub, which contains guidance for employers and employees on the new employment rights: New employment rights: Guidance for businesses and workers

The next major implementation date for the Act is April 2026, when a number of important provisions will take effect. We will explore these developments in next month's article. In the meantime, take a moment to review our updated employment law timeline and see what is scheduled to come into force when.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations

Draft Regulations have been laid before Parliament that will increase the rates of the national minimum wage from 1 April. The national living wage (21+) will be £12.71 per hour and the 18 to 20 year old rate will be £10.85 per hour.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026

Draft Regulations have been laid before Parliament. They will increase the rates of social security benefits from early April 2026. Statutory sick pay is expected to increase to £123.25 per week and the various statutory family payments will rise to £194.32 per week.

Changes to ET and EAT Rules

The Tribunal Procedure and Employment Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 have been laid before Parliament. They implement changes to the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 with effect from 2 March 2026. The main changes include

• to refer explicitly to judicial assessment and dispute resolution appointments as part of case management
• to allow for the rejection of a claim form that does not contain any grounds on which the party relies
• at the sift stage a judge will be able to consider whether the response or reply contains no grounds on which the claim is resisted
• the ETs will be able to direct a party to prepare a draft case management order, and
• judges will be permitted to give either summary or full reasons for judgments. Written summary reasons are not required to be published on the register.

Consequential amendments are made to the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Amendment) Rules 2026, which have also been laid before Parliament. Full written reasons are required to institute an appeal, and the time period for instituting an appeal is calculated by reference to the date the full reasons are sent to the parties.

Other developments

The Judicial Appointments Commission is launching a selection exercise on 12 March to recruit 55 full-time equivalent salaried employment judges. Recruitment is to all regions but will focus on London and the South East in order to help address the backlog of cases: Salaried Judge of the Employment Tribunal (England & Wales) - Judicial Careers

The "UK's largest tribunals centre" was due to open in London at the end of February. It is based in Newgate Street, next to the Old Bailey. It will tackle a range of cases including ET claims and London Central ET was due to move there from Victory House. The first in-person ET hearings will start in early March. It houses 30 hearing rooms and 40 judicial chambers, and it will support up to 60 judges: UK’s largest tribunals centre opens in London to speed up delays - GOV.UK

The Low Pay Commission published its annual report on 2 February. As well as explaining its recommendations for this year, it looks at how to balance the Government's aim to remove the discriminatory age bands with its desire to avoid causing youth unemployment. The LPC proposes to reduce the national living wage eligibility age to 20 in 2027 (from 21) then to age 18 in 2028 or 2029, subject to economic conditions and Government policy at the time: Low Pay Commission Report 2025 - GOV.UK

Acas has published the results of a survey on which changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025 will have the biggest impact on employers and workers. The new right to sick pay from day one of illness came top, followed by protection from unfair dismissal from six months of employment. Acas commissioned YouGov to carry out the survey, which took place in February.

The Government has published its response to the call for evidence on unpaid internships and internships paid below the national minimum wage, which took place last year. It has set out the steps it intends to take, which will include expanding its guidance on the national minimum wage, strengthening enforcement via the existing channels and the new Fair Work Agency, and encouraging individuals to report where work trials are being misused.

For further information about any of these developments, please get in touch with the author or your usual WBD contact.