What's new in employment law? Summer 2025

In a new monthly article, we summarise the employment law developments you need to know about. Each month we'll look at important recent cases, what's been happening in relation to new legislation, and other interesting developments.

Case update

This month we explore The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Taylors Services Ltd (Dissolved) and others. In this case, the Court of Appeal looked at whether poultry workers were entitled to the national minimum wage for the time spent travelling from their homes to and from farms on their employer's minibus. Next we turn to Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another, where the High Court had to decide if the employer had breached its duty of care to an employee accused of sexual harassment. Lastly, Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance considered whether the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments where they were not feasible for safety and operational reasons. 

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Taylors Services Ltd (Dissolved) and others

Workers were collected from their homes each day by a minibus provided by their employer and taken to the poultry farms where they would be working. They were driven home again after work. They could spend up to eight hours travelling each day and were paid £2.50 per hour for the time spent travelling. HMRC decided that they should be paid the national minimum wage (NMW) for their travel time and issued notices of underpayment. The employer's challenge to these notices failed in the employment tribunal (ET) but succeeded in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the workers were not entitled to the NMW in respect of their travelling time. Regulation 34 of the NMW Regulations states that travelling is treated as time work if it is for the purposes of time work and "the worker would otherwise be working" if not travelling. Since the workers would not "otherwise be working" during their travel time, it could not be treated as time work and they were not entitled to receive the NMW.

Woodhead v WTTV Ltd and another

Mr Woodhead was the managing director of WTTV. He had a history of depression and anxiety and was a recovering alcoholic. He was told that a freelance colleague had made sexual harassment complaints about him and he was required to respond immediately. He was then suspended. In her complaints, the colleague disclosed personal information that Mr Woodhead had shared with her in private conversations. Mr Woodhead became very unwell and was admitted to hospital for several weeks. He was then treated as an outpatient for seven weeks. He brought claims against WTTV for negligence and misuse of private information. He alleged that WTTV's handling of the disciplinary procedure was a breach of its duty of care, which caused him psychiatric injury.

The High Court upheld Mr Woodhead's negligence claim. It was reasonably foreseeable that he was at risk of psychiatric injury due to his medical history, and WTTV had breached its duty of care to him in the way in which it had carried out the disciplinary process. However, it had not misused his private information; the colleague disclosed Mr Woodhead's private information for a legitimate complaint under WTTV's workplace respect policy. The disclosure was justified and did not constitute misuse.

Mahoro v The Northern Care Alliance

Mrs Mahoro was employed by the Northern Care Alliance (NCA) as a biomedical scientist band 6 team leader. She had a long-term spinal condition that affected her mobility and caused her pain. Following surgery, she returned to work on a phased basis and requested permanent reduced hours. An occupational health (OH) report supported her request and recommended a special chair. NCA refused the application for reduced hours, as it could not recruit another scientist to cover the remaining hours. NCA also rejected the request for a special chair, as it moved on castors and there were safety concerns about its use at laboratory benches. Mrs Mahoro experienced neck pain when using a manual microscope so a digital one was trialled. However, it was not accurate enough and would have created a risk to patients. Mrs Mahoro went off sick with stress and did not return to work. Five review meetings were held to consider OH reports and discuss arrangements to help Mrs Mahoro return to work. She was eventually dismissed for capability and brought several claims, including for unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The ET rejected her claims and she appealed.

The EAT rejected her appeal. NCA's refusal of the proposed working hours was not a failure to make reasonable adjustments because the arrangement would have put pressure on the rest of the team and it would have been difficult to recruit someone to cover the hours Mrs Mahoro did not want to work. The safety risk posed by the recommended chair meant that providing it was not a reasonable adjustment, and the provision of a digital microscope was not a reasonable adjustment either, given the danger to patients. (In other words, the employer had not failed to make reasonable adjustments because the adjustments were not workable and safe.) The dismissal was not unfair because Mrs Mahoro had been off sick for nearly two years when she had been dismissed, the adjustments that would have been necessary for her to return to her role were not reasonable, she had been consulted throughout the process and NCA had sought up-to-date medical reports.

Legislation

This month, we focus on the Employment Rights Bill. 

The House of Lords Report Stage took place between 14 and 23 July. The House agreed various non-Government amendments. The most significant changes it made were to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months and to remove the initial period of employment (ie the statutory probationary period under the Bill). On 17 July the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) published an impact assessment on the new provisions relating to non-disclosure agreements, from which it appears that an agreement requested by a worker may be outside the scope of the new provisions.

Parliament returned from the summer recess on 1 September, which means that progress can now be made on the Bill. The Third Reading in the House of Lords will take place on 3 September, following which the Bill will return to the Commons to discuss the amendments made by the Lords. The DBT is said to be considering offering free HR advice to small businesses via a voucher scheme to help them navigate the contractual changes they may need to make because of the Bill.

See our Employment Rights Bill timeline for up-to-date information on the progress of the Bill, and listen to our latest podcast to find out about the timeline for implementation.

In other news, section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 came into force on 1 August. It prohibits English higher education providers from entering into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with staff, members, students or visiting speakers that seek to prevent the person from publishing or disclosing information about a complaint made to the provider relating to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. Such NDAs will be void.

Other developments

There have been several interesting developments in the last month, which are summarised below.

Unpaid internships: call for evidence

The DBT has published a call for evidence, seeking evidence and views on unpaid internships and internships paid below the NMW, unpaid work trials and work trials paid below the NMW, voluntary workers, volunteers and work shadowing. The call for evidence closes on 9 October and the Government expects to publish its response in January or February 2026.

Low Pay Commission (LPC) remit 2025

The Government has published the LPC remit, in which it asked the LPC to make recommendations on the rates that will apply from 1 April 2026 for the national living wage, the NMW for 18 to 20 year-olds and the other NMW rates. The LPC has been asked to seek to narrow the gap between the national living wage and the NMW. Its recommendations are due by the end of October.

Review of the whistleblowing framework

The DBT has published independent research on understanding the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in Great Britain. The research was commissioned by the previous Government and carried out by Grant Thornton.

EHRC updated Code of Practice delayed

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) consulted on updates made to its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations (the Code) between 20 May and 30 June. The consultation focused on changes needed to the Code following the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which clarified the definition of "sex" under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The EHRC sought views on how the updates reflect the Court's decision and whether they provide clear guidance on complying with the Act. The EHRC aimed to send the updated version of the Code to the Government by the end of July. However, it received more than 51,000 responses to the consultation and now expects to finalise the updated Code by the end of August. The Code will need to be approved by Parliament before it becomes statutory guidance.

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