Following VinciWorks webinar on the Employment Rights Act 2025, the volume of questions we received shows just how much uncertainty there still is around the changes.
We weren’t able to cover everything live, so we’ve pulled together some of the key questions submitted during the session, along with our responses below.
You can watch the webinar again here.
Download our guides shared in the webinar:
Guide to the Employment Rights Act 2025
Guide to Sexual Harassment: Implementing All Reasonable Steps
Guide to Higgs v Farmor’s School: Protected Belief at Work
Q: How does the Employment Rights Act 2025 affect Shared Parental Leave, particularly given that some family rights are becoming day one entitlements?
A: The Act does not make Shared Parental Leave a day one right.
What it does is more limited and specific. It removes the service requirement for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, making those day one rights from April 2026 . It also allows paternity leave to be taken after a period of Shared Parental Leave, which was not previously permitted.
Shared Parental Leave itself is not fundamentally changed by the Act. In particular, the existing eligibility framework, including requirements linked to the other parent’s economic activity, remains in place. So while the direction of travel is towards earlier access to certain family rights, Shared Parental Leave has not been brought into that day one model.
Q: How does the Employment Rights Act 2025 affect annualised hours contracts?
A: The Act does not ban or directly regulate annualised hours contracts.
The main impact comes from the new rights around predictability and working patterns, particularly for workers with variable or low hours. The Act introduces a right to be offered guaranteed hours based on actual hours worked over a reference period, along with rights to reasonable notice of shifts and compensation for short-notice changes .
In practice, this means annualised hours arrangements will need to be operated more carefully. If, in reality, a worker’s hours are more regular than the contract suggests, there may be an obligation to offer a contract that better reflects those hours.
So while annualised hours contracts remain lawful, employers will need to ensure they reflect genuine flexibility and are not being used in a way that avoids the new guaranteed hours and shift notice requirements.
Q: Will market standard probation periods become 6 months to align with the new Employment Rights Act?
A: The Act does not set or require a standard probation period of 6 months.
What it does is reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection to 6 months (from 2 years), taking effect from January 2027.
In practice, many employers already use probation periods of 3–6 months. The Act does not mandate changing these, though it does significantly reduce the window in which an employee can be dismissed without the risk of an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
So while you may see employers align probation periods more closely to 6 months, or tighten review processes within that timeframe, this is a practical response to the new risk profile rather than a legal requirement. The important point is that probation periods remain a contractual tool, not something set by the Act.
Q: If an employee reports difficulties and is then blamed or dismissed, even where they have followed policy and procedure, what does the Employment Rights Act 2025 change?
A: The Act strengthens protections in this area, though the core principles already exist in law.
Employees are protected from dismissal or detriment where they raise certain concerns, particularly where this amounts to a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). The Act expands this by explicitly including sexual harassment as a type of protected disclosure .
More broadly, the Act increases employer obligations around workplace conduct. Employers are now required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, and there is increased focus on how complaints are handled and documented.
Alongside this, the reduction in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to 6 months means employees gain protection much earlier in their employment.
Taken together, this means that dismissing or penalising someone for raising concerns, especially where they have followed internal procedures, carries greater legal risk and scrutiny. That said, whether a particular situation amounts to unfair dismissal or unlawful detriment will always depend on the specific facts, so it is worth seeking specialist advice in individual cases.
Q: When you say the 9-month probation period is scrapped, can employers still apply probation periods, for example a 6-month probation?
A: Yes. Employers can still use probation periods, including a 6-month probation.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 does not abolish probation periods or set a statutory length. Probation remains a contractual tool for managing performance and suitability.
What has changed is the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, which is reduced to 6 months from January 2027. That is separate from probation.
In practice, this means probation periods will continue to exist, though employers will need to manage them more carefully. Once an employee reaches 6 months’ service, they will have unfair dismissal protection regardless of whether they are still in probation. So a 6-month probation remains perfectly valid, though the legal risk profile during and after that period is changing.
Q: Can companies still state in contracts that sick pay is not payable during probation, given the new day one rights?
A: Employers can still choose not to offer company sick pay during probation, though they cannot remove the right to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).
Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, SSP is payable from day one of sickness absence, with the previous waiting period removed. This is a statutory entitlement and cannot be contracted out of.
However, any enhanced or contractual sick pay above SSP remains at the employer’s discretion. It is still permissible to limit company sick pay during probation, provided employees continue to receive SSP where eligible.
So the distinction is important. You can restrict contractual sick pay in probation, though you cannot exclude SSP, even for very short absences.
Q: Is there any guidance in the Employment Rights Act 2025 on how to calculate overtime?
A: The Act does not introduce a new, general method for calculating overtime.
Its main impact is indirect. It reinforces existing expectations that holiday pay should reflect normal remuneration, which can include regular overtime, and increases the focus on accurate record-keeping and enforcement .
Beyond that, overtime calculation remains governed by existing law and case law rather than the Act itself. Pay rates, eligibility and how overtime is structured are still primarily matters of contract, subject to minimum wage and working time rules.
So there is no new statutory formula for overtime in the Act. The practical takeaway is that employers should ensure their approach to overtime is clearly defined, consistently applied and properly recorded, particularly where it feeds into holiday pay or wider pay compliance.
Q: Is the notice period for industrial action (IA) measured in working days?
A: The Act reduces the notice period for industrial action to 10 days, though it does not redefine this as “working days” .
In line with existing practice in trade union law, notice periods are generally interpreted as calendar days, not working days, unless legislation explicitly states otherwise.
Q: If a probation period is extended beyond 6 months, does the 6-month threshold still apply regardless?
A: Yes. Extending probation does not delay statutory rights.
Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection is reduced to 6 months, taking effect from January 2027 Once an employee reaches that point, they gain protection regardless of whether they are still in a contractual probation period.
Probation is an internal, contractual mechanism. It does not override statutory rights. So you can extend probation beyond 6 months if your contract allows, though the employee will still have unfair dismissal protection once they pass the 6-month service mark.
Q: In the NHS, if the employer says “the service cannot cope” with reasonable adjustments, does the employee have any recourse, and has this changed under the Employment Rights Act 2025?
A: The short answer is that this has not materially changed under the Employment Rights Act 2025. The key legal framework remains the Equality Act 2010.
Under that law, NHS employers (like all employers) have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee is placed at a substantial disadvantage.
However, “reasonable” is doing a lot of work here. Employers are not required to agree to every adjustment requested. They can refuse if the adjustment is not reasonable in the circumstances, for example where it is not practical, affordable, or would significantly impact the service.
That is where statements like “the service cannot cope” often come from. The issue is whether that position is objectively justified and evidenced, not simply asserted.
Importantly, even where an employer refuses a specific adjustment, they are expected to:
- Explain their reasoning
- Engage with the employee
- Consider alternative adjustments that may be workable
If they do not do this, it can amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, which is a form of disability discrimination. In terms of recourse, employees still have several routes:
- Internal grievance
- Raising concerns through HR or occupational health
- Ultimately, an employment tribunal claim for discrimination if reasonable adjustments have been unlawfully refused
The NHS context does matter in practice, as operational pressures and patient safety can be relevant when assessing what is “reasonable”. Though those factors do not remove the duty altogether. They need to be balanced and evidenced.
So the position has not fundamentally shifted. The law still requires reasonable adjustments, though it also allows employers to refuse specific requests where they can justify that decision properly.
Q: If redundancies are carried out, concluded, and then a further round is needed, does that affect how numbers are counted for collective consultation or reporting?
A: Yes, it can do. The key issue is whether the redundancies fall within the same relevant period and are treated as part of the same overall exercise.
Under existing rules, collective redundancy obligations are triggered where an employer proposes 20 or more redundancies within a 90-day period at one establishment. The Employment Rights Act 2025 strengthens this by moving towards counting redundancies across the organisation, not just a single establishment .
In practice, this means that separate rounds of redundancies may still be aggregated if they are:
- Close together in time
- Part of a broader restructuring plan
- Not genuinely separate exercises
If a second round follows shortly after the first, it may need to be counted together with the earlier redundancies when assessing whether consultation and notification thresholds are met. If, however, the later redundancies are clearly separate in timing and rationale, they are more likely to be treated as a new exercise.
So the timing, planning and rationale behind each round matter. Employers should be cautious about treating multiple rounds as isolated if, in reality, they form part of a single ongoing restructuring.
Q: If work nights out are treated as an extension of work, how liable is the employer for how members of the public, such as bar staff, behave towards employees?
A: The Employment Rights Act 2025 increases employer exposure in this area, though it does not make employers automatically liable for everything that happens.
The key change is that employers can now be liable for harassment of employees by third parties, such as customers, clients or members of the public, unless they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent it .
That is a higher threshold than before. It is not enough to react after the event. Employers are expected to take proactive steps to reduce the risk, particularly where the setting is work-related, such as a staff social event.
In practice, that means liability will depend on what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have anticipated, and what steps were taken. For example, whether:
- Expectations were clearly communicated to staff
- Risks around the environment were considered
- There were clear reporting routes and support if something occurred
You are not expected to control the behaviour of members of the public. The legal question is whether you took reasonable steps to protect your employees in that context.
So work socials do fall within scope, and the duty extends to third-party behaviour. Though liability will turn on whether the employer can demonstrate that it took all reasonable preventative steps.
Q: Will the Employment Rights Act 2025 impact redundancy and redeployment where the alternative role has reduced benefits or less favourable terms?
A: Yes, though the impact is indirect and sits mainly around dismissal risk.
The Act strengthens protection against dismissal used to impose worse contractual terms. In particular, so-called “fire and rehire” practices will be treated as automatically unfair in most cases, unless the employer can show genuine financial necessity and that the change was unavoidable.
In a redundancy context, redeployment to a suitable alternative role remains a valid approach. Employees can still be offered roles with different terms, and they can choose whether to accept them.
However, the risk arises where:
- The alternative role is materially less favourable, and
- Refusal leads to dismissal and re-engagement on worse terms
In those cases, employers will need to justify why the change is necessary, not simply preferable. So redeployment is still allowed, including to roles with different terms. The key change is that forcing acceptance of worse terms through dismissal carries a higher legal risk, and employers will need a stronger business rationale and a fair process.
Q: Do we need to keep records of working hours, not just paid hours, for six years?
A: The Act introduces a new duty to keep adequate records relating to annual leave, though the exact details and timing are still to be confirmed.
It does not currently create a clear, standalone rule that all employers must keep full working time records (as opposed to pay records) for six years.
That said, the direction of travel is towards more detailed and longer retention of records, particularly where they underpin rights such as holiday pay, working time and pay compliance. In practice, that is likely to include records of hours actually worked, not just what was paid.
So while a strict six-year requirement for all working hours is not yet fully defined in the Act, employers should expect increased expectations around record-keeping and ensure their systems can evidence hours worked where relevant.
Q: We currently have a 6-month probation period. Given the new 6-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal, should we reduce probation to 5 months?
A: There is no requirement to reduce probation to 5 months.
The Act reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection to 6 months from January 2027. That change operates independently of probation.
A 6-month probation period remains perfectly valid. The practical implication is that unfair dismissal protection will arise at the 6-month point, even if the employee is still within probation or the probation is being reviewed or extended.
In terms of approach, this becomes more about process than duration. Employers may choose to:
- Keep a 6-month probation and ensure reviews and decisions are made before that point, or
- Shorten probation slightly to allow more time for decision-making
There is no single “correct” model. The key is to ensure performance concerns are identified and managed early, and that any decisions are properly documented.
For decisions on changing probation structures or managing exits close to the 6-month mark, it would be sensible to take specific advice from our partners at WorkNest.
Q: What happens to fixed-term contracts under the Employment Rights Act 2025? Are they effectively going away, for example for maternity cover?
A: Fixed-term contracts are not abolished and remain a valid form of employment, including for maternity cover.
The Act does not remove the ability to use fixed-term arrangements. What it does change is the broader rights framework that applies during employment, rather than the contract type itself.
In particular:
- Employees on fixed-term contracts will benefit from day one rights, such as Statutory Sick Pay from the first day of absence
- They will gain unfair dismissal protection after 6 months’ service from January 2027
For maternity cover specifically, fixed-term contracts remain common and lawful. The end of a fixed-term contract can still amount to a dismissal, as under current law, though the legal risk increases once the employee has the relevant service for unfair dismissal protection.
So fixed-term contracts are still very much in use. The key shift is that employees on those contracts will gain protections earlier, meaning employers need to manage the reason for ending the contract, and the process followed, more carefully than before.
Q: Will the Employment Rights Act 2025 changes apply to police services, given they are exempt from some employment rules?
A: In general, yes, though with important qualifications.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 applies across the labour market, including the public sector. However, police officers occupy a distinct legal position. They are typically office holders rather than employees, and many employment law rights do not apply to them in the same way.
So the impact depends on the group:
- Police staff (civilian employees): The Act will apply in the usual way. They will benefit from changes such as day one rights and the reduced qualifying period for unfair dismissal .
- Police officers: Many provisions may not apply directly, or may apply only in modified form, because their terms and conditions are governed by separate statutory frameworks and regulations.
The Act itself recognises that some provisions do not extend universally, including in relation to employment outside Great Britain and specific categories of worker .
So the short answer is that the reforms are relevant to policing organisations, particularly for staff. For sworn officers, the position is more complex and often sits outside standard employment law, so it is worth taking specialist advice for those roles.
Q: How do third parties and hired-in contractors compare under the new harassment rules in the Employment Rights Act 2025?
A: The Act draws a clear distinction between third parties and contractors, though the practical risk can overlap.
For third parties (for example customers, clients, or members of the public), the Act introduces explicit liability where an employee is harassed, unless the employer can show it took all reasonable steps to prevent it . This is a direct extension of employer responsibility.
For contractors, the position depends on the relationship:
- If the individual is not your employee (for example, engaged via another company), they are more likely to be treated as a third party in this context
- If they are working closely alongside your staff, there may also be obligations under general health and safety and workplace conduct expectations
In practice, the distinction matters less than the control and foreseeability of risk. If contractors are embedded in your workplace or attending work events, employers are expected to take steps to prevent harassment affecting their staff, regardless of the technical label.
So third-party liability is now explicit in the Act. Contractors often fall into that category, though the more integrated they are into your workforce, the stronger the expectation that you actively manage the risk.
Q: Does the move to multi-site redundancy thresholds apply to a remote organisation where employees are home-based rather than at physical “sites”?
A: Yes, the wording of the Act suggests it will.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 moves towards counting redundancies across the organisation, not just at a single establishment . That shift reduces the importance of a physical “site” as the key unit of assessment.
For remote or home-based workforces, this is particularly relevant. Where there is no clear physical establishment, the focus is more likely to be on the employer as a whole, rather than trying to define individual home locations as separate sites.
In practice, that means redundancies affecting a dispersed, remote workforce are more likely to be aggregated together when assessing whether collective consultation thresholds are met.
The detailed rules will depend on final regulations and how “establishment” is interpreted in this new framework, in later guidance or through litigation. The practical takeaway is that remote structures are unlikely to avoid aggregation, and employers should plan on a more organisation-wide assessment of redundancy numbers.
Q: How do the Employment Rights Act 2025 changes fit with the FCA’s non-financial misconduct (NFM) rules from September 2026, and what should employers do to address both?
A: The two regimes are separate, though they are clearly moving in the same direction and will need to be managed together.
From the Employment Rights Act side, employers face stronger obligations around workplace conduct and reporting, including:
- A duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
- Liability for third-party harassment
- Protection for workers who raise concerns, with sexual harassment now explicitly within whistleblowing scope
At the same time, the FCA’s NFM framework brings conduct like bullying, harassment and other non-financial behaviour firmly into the scope of fitness and propriety, conduct rules and regulatory reporting.
This means the same behaviour may now trigger:
- Employment law risk (harassment, detriment, unfair dismissal)
- Regulatory risk (breach of FCA Conduct Rules, fitness and propriety issues)
What this means in practice is that employers, particularly FCA-regulated firms, need a more joined-up approach:
- Policies and definitions: Ensure disciplinary, whistleblowing and harassment policies align with FCA expectations on NFM, not just employment law thresholds
- Investigations: Treat misconduct cases as both HR and regulatory matters from the outset, with clear escalation routes
- Speak-up culture: Strengthen reporting channels and protections, given the expanded whistleblowing scope and regulatory expectations
- Governance: Ensure HR, Compliance and Legal are coordinated, especially where issues may require FCA notification
- Training: Update managers and senior managers on how workplace behaviour now links directly to regulatory obligations
So the Act raises the baseline for how employers must prevent and respond to misconduct. The FCA regime adds a layer of individual accountability and regulatory consequence. Together, they push firms towards treating non-financial misconduct as a core governance issue rather than a purely HR matter.
Q: Is this in addition to the annual workforce monitoring report under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)?
A: Yes. These are separate obligations.
The PSED requires public bodies to monitor and report on equality impacts across their workforce and operations. That framework remains unchanged.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces additional, distinct expectations. In particular, it gives powers to require equality action plans alongside pay gap reporting, and strengthens duties around preventing harassment and improving workplace conduct.
So while there is overlap in terms of focus on equality and workplace culture, the requirements are not interchangeable.
In practice, many organisations will want to align the two. Data gathered for PSED reporting can help inform equality action plans and identify areas where further action is needed under the newer requirements.
Q: Does it matter who has passed away when it comes to bereavement leave? Is it based on closeness to the person?
A: Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, bereavement leave is being expanded, though the detail is still evolving.
The Act introduces a broader right to bereavement leave for the loss of loved ones, moving beyond the previous position which was largely limited to the death of a child .
That suggests the focus will shift towards the relationship and impact on the employee, rather than a narrowly defined list of relatives. However, the exact scope, including how “loved ones” is defined and whether any limits apply, will be set out in further regulations. The precise legal boundaries are not yet fully defined, so employers should take a cautious and empathetic approach in the meantime. It might be worth specifying in a policy who is covered.
Q: We class our Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) as workers rather than employees. Will this change under the Employment Rights Act 2025?
A: The Act does not introduce a single new status or automatically reclassify roles such as NEDs.
It keeps the existing distinction between employees and workers, though it extends and strengthens certain rights, many of which apply to workers as well as employees .
In practice, that means:
- If your NEDs are genuinely engaged as workers, that status does not automatically change
- However, they may benefit from an expanded set of rights where provisions apply to workers, not just employees
The more important point is that status remains a factual question, based on the reality of the relationship rather than the label used. If the working arrangement looks more like employment in practice, the risk of reclassification remains.
So there is no automatic change to NED status under the Act. The focus should be on ensuring the classification reflects the actual working relationship, especially as more rights extend across both categories.
Q: If someone is engaged on a consultancy contract, does that mean they are a full-time employee?
A: No. A consultancy contract does not, in itself, make someone an employee.
Employment status is determined by the reality of the working relationship, not the label in the contract. Someone described as a “consultant” may be:
- Genuinely self-employed
- A worker
- In some cases, an employee in practice
The Employment Rights Act 2025 does not change that core principle. What it does do is extend certain rights more broadly, including to workers as well as employees.
The key factors remain things like:
- Level of control over how, when and where the work is done
- Mutuality of obligation (is there an expectation to provide and accept work?)
- Whether the individual is integrated into the organisation
So a consultancy contract can still be used legitimately. The risk arises where the day-to-day reality looks like employment, in which case the individual may be treated as an employee regardless of the contract wording. If there is any uncertainty, it is worth getting specific advice, as misclassification can carry legal and tax risk.
Q: From what date do the wage changes take effect?
A: The wage-related changes take effect from 1 April 2026.
This includes increases to the National Minimum Wage and statutory payment rates, which are implemented at the start of the new financial year. So any updated wage rates should be applied from 1 April 2026.
Q: Does the Employment Rights Act 2025 affect notice periods for employees?
A: No, the Act does not change statutory or contractual notice periods for employees.
The existing rules on notice, including minimum statutory notice and any enhanced contractual notice, remain in place. So notice periods continue to be governed by existing legislation and the employment contract, rather than being updated by the Act.
Q: Which powers will the Fair Work Agency have on its first day (7 April)? Is it only what transfers from GLAA and DMLE? And when does NMW compliance move from HMRC to the FWA?
A: On 7 April 2026, the Fair Work Agency (FWA) is formally established, though its full enforcement regime builds over time.
On day one, the FWA will largely operate by bringing together existing enforcement functions, including:
- The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)
- The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
- Oversight functions linked to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement
Those powers, including licensing, inspections and labour exploitation enforcement, effectively transfer immediately. It will also have core enforcement capabilities from the outset, such as:
- Investigating breaches
- Entering workplaces and requiring information
- Issuing penalties and requiring repayment of sums owed
- Bringing employment tribunal claims on behalf of workers
However, the key point is that the FWA is not fully “switched on” across all areas on day one. Its remit expands in stages. On National Minimum Wage (NMW):
- The intention is for NMW enforcement to transfer from HMRC to the FWA from April 2026 as part of the new structure
- In practice, this is expected to be one of the earliest areas to transition, because the FWA can inherit HMRC’s existing enforcement teams and processes
On other areas like holiday pay and statutory sick pay, enforcement powers exist in the legislation though are expected to come online more gradually as systems and teams are built.
So in summary:
- Day one is largely about consolidation of existing enforcement bodies and powers
- The FWA already has broad investigatory and enforcement powers, though many are inherited
- NMW enforcement is expected to transfer early, from April 2026, likely with continuity of HMRC’s approach
- The wider enforcement regime (holiday pay, SSP, broader rights) ramps up over time rather than all at once
That staged rollout is why there is still some uncertainty in how quickly the FWA will feel different in practice.
Q: With the removal of the unfair dismissal compensation cap from 1 January 2027, does this apply to all employees from that date, or only where the dismissal happens after that date?
A: The key date is when the dismissal takes effect, not whether the employee is still employed on 1 January 2027.
The Act removes the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal from January 2027 . In practice, employment law changes like this generally apply based on the effective date of termination (EDT).
So:
- If the dismissal takes effect on or after 1 January 2027, the cap is expected not to apply
- If the dismissal takes effect before that date, the existing cap is likely to remain in place
In your example, if notice was given in 2026 but the employment ends in 2027, the removal of the cap would likely apply. If employment ended in 2026, it would not.
As with many of these provisions, the exact transitional rules will be confirmed in regulations, so there may be some nuance. For any live cases around that boundary, it would be sensible to take specific advice.
