From Fire And Rehire To Menopause Plans: What Employers Must Change By 2027

Big changes are landing across UK employment law, and we break them down into clear actions leaders can take now. Joined by Joanna Sutton from Nockolds, We start with October 2026, where attempts to change core contractual terms via fire and rehire face strict limits, signalling a cultural shift toward genuine consultation and fair process. We then open up the hard bit: third‑party harassment liability returning for customers, clients, and contractors. That means training, strong reporting routes, and updated client terms if you want to stay compliant and protect your people.

From there, we zoom in on the practical ripple effects of doubling tribunal time limits from three to six months. It’s a sensible move for access to justice, but it will reward organisations that resolve issues early and document decisions well. The centrepiece arrives in early 2027: unfair dismissal will become available after six months’ service, with the existing compensation cap flagged for removal. We explain how to use probation properly, setting expectations in week one, holding regular reviews, recording support provided, and making timely, fair calls, so managers don’t stumble into avoidable claims.

We also dive into the future of zero hours work. Contracts aren’t going away, but predictability is coming: guaranteed hours after a 12‑week lookback, reasonable notice for shifts, and compensation for late cancellations or curtailment. Expect an admin lift and plan for better forecasting, smarter scheduling systems, and transparent standby practices. Finally, large employers will need equality action plans that at minimum address gender pay and menopause, moving beyond reporting to accountable action that keeps experienced talent in work and narrows pay gaps. Throughout, we highlight where the details are still being shaped by consultations and how to stay ahead.

If you lead HR, run an operations team, or advise on workforce strategy, this conversation gives you a practical roadmap. Subscribe for more clear guidance, share this with a colleague who needs to prep their policies, and leave a review to tell us what change you want decoded next.

📬 Stay in the know: https://www.haylohr.com
📱 Follow us:

Twitter/X: @haylohr
TikTok: @trishinhr
Instagram: @haylo_hr

GET IN CONTACT
https://www.haylohr.com/
Contact Joanna here-    / joannaesutton

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This audio is published by Trish Hewitt of Haylo HR. The information in this video is for general guidance only and, although the presenter believes it was correct at the time it was recorded (January 2026), the law may have changed since then. You should always seek your own legal advice. This advice adheres to employment law within England, Scotland and Wales.

Transcript

Setting The Agenda: 2026–2027

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Right, welcome back. We're doing part two where we look at the Employment Rights Act, and I'm once again joined by the fabulous, the amazing Joanna Sutton from Knockold. How are you doing?

SPEAKER_01 0:12

Good, what an intro, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 0:15

From the bottom of my heart, you always give us so much time, energy, knowledge, and I think it's it's crucial. I think it's really important. I know I've got a lot of clients who are nervous about this stuff, and just being able to listen to someone who knows what they're talking about, talks about it in plain English and just makes it nice and clear. It's gold dust. So thank you.

SPEAKER_01 0:35

Welcome, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 0:37

Alrighty, look, let's get right into it. So last time we went through um the different um parts of the act that were coming in in April, um, and we deliberately kind of stopped it so that we could think about within this part, um, October onwards and also kind of 2027. I can't believe it's 2026, to be honest. I still can't get my head right now. Where did last year go?

SPEAKER_01 0:58

It disappeared. I don't know where it went.

Fire And Rehire: What Changes

SPEAKER_00 1:00

I looked at literally up and I'm like, well, how am I in 2026? Anywho, so last time we did um the changes that were coming in April 2026. This time around we'll do October 26, and then we'll look at 2027 as well, particularly because there's some there's at least one biggie coming in 2027. So let's start off with yes, the one that we're all like, but we shall get there shortly. So let's start off with fire and rehire. So October 2026, fire and rehire becomes automatically um unfair dismissal, um, which I'm quite pleased about, to be honest. Um, well does that mean that people won't be able to use it at all? Because that's quite specific, isn't it, saying it'll become automatically unfair dismissal. So is it going away completely?

SPEAKER_01 1:45

That was the original intention of the government, I think, where they basically wanted to outlaw it. So this practice of fire and rehire is basically used where an employer wants to change an employee's terms of conditions, so the terms of their contracts. Um, normally you have to get the employee's agreement to that. So you would consult with the employee, explain to them why you want to change it, what the changes mean. Um, and then if the employee still doesn't agree, then you either have to decide to just carry on with the existing contract, or if you want to force it through, you can, um, or one option is you dismiss them, um, and then you offer them new employment on the on the revised terms that you wanted to try and um force through, or you give those terms to somebody else and you get rid of the employee. So you fire and rehire. Um, and again, over the last few years that's become a bit of a controversial practice. Again, PO fairies are to blame, I think, for for this one because that's what they wanted to do. They made all their staff redundant, then wanted to rehire agency workers who were cheaper. Um, and so it's been used then. It also, I think Tesco used it, um, where they were trying to overturn a deal that had been negotiated previously with unions, and then they decided they didn't like that anymore. So they were trying to force it out and use this practice. So, again, big employers forcing through changes because the balance of power between you know big corporation and individual employees is completely out of work. So the government said, no, no, we don't like that. We want to um to outlaw it basically, so that you their their intention was that you couldn't use it at all, um, unless it meant that the company would go under, essentially, if you didn't enforce the the change. And it was one of the things going through the ping-pong stages in parliament where um the Conservative and Labour government and the House of Commons and the House of Lords just couldn't agree. So the where we've got to now is that um you can't force through these changes by using fire and rehire um if it is a a restricted variation. So there are certain things that they are specifying you cannot change um by going through this process. So it's obvious stuff like you can't change hours and salary and holiday and things like that. So the big things that are sort of fundamental terms, and that that exception about um the company going in going under or being in sort of serious financial difficulty if the change doesn't um uh go through is still there. So it's not something that you know that that that's used every day, um, but it is something that politically has become quite unpopular. So again, it it's really just to sort of um to earmark that to say we don't like this practice, please don't use it unless you absolutely have to. It's basically the the the stance, I think.

SPEAKER_00 4:41

I have to say it's but it's always been one of those ones that's just never really sat right with me. So obviously, when I'm advising you know clients or when I'm working in businesses, I'll always say, like, these are your options, and this is one of them that I really wouldn't recommend that you do. I've just I'm doing my job by telling you, but I really wouldn't recommend they do. So it just doesn't yeah, I am pleased to see something kind of making that a little bit more stringent, which is really cool. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, so we're sticking with October. Um, we've not got too much happening in October. April was quite a busy month from the last podcast that we did. Yeah, um this time we're looking at third-party harassment liability. So October 26th, it will see employers become liable for third-party harassment. So that's customers, clients, contractors. Why is this such a big shift?

Third-Party Harassment Liability

SPEAKER_01 5:27

Yeah, I mean, this is a this is a big one, and it's one that a lot of employers are are are concerned about. So, I mean, it it's big in the sense, and it goes back to what we were saying in the first part of the podcast about harassment really being a big part of the government's agenda, um, to, you know, to make sure that this is being dealt with and that there is a cultural change within organisations, that you know, these things are no longer sort of um, you know, people don't look the other way in the way that maybe you did in, you know, 30 years ago, that no one goes to work to be harassed. Um, and this third party harassment was actually law. Um, I think back in um 2013 it was it was um repealed. Um basically what it means is that currently your staff cannot harass one another. So um employees uh are not allowed to uh to harass each other, that results in a claim. What this is doing is meaning that third parties also can't harass your staff at work. So, as you said, clients or customers, things like that, which um is much more difficult for an employer to manage than it is their own staff. So you have visibility of your own staff, you can train them, you can have clear policies on what they can and can't do. You can't do that for your clients necessarily. So, you know, what it would mean is perhaps putting something in your terms and conditions to say, oh, and by the way, we don't accept harassment of our staff, you must not harass any of our staff, you know, makes sense, common sense, you know, you would think that you don't need to spell that out. But if you think about perhaps a hospitality setting or something like that, like a restaurant, you know, and you will have your staff dealing with members of the public, you know, being waiters and waitresses, um, it's really difficult to police that um in those circumstances. And um, so it the liability for those organizations, if employees can bring claims for customers in that setting, harassing them where the employer has no idea it's happening and no ability to control it, is really, yeah, really difficult. So um this is a a big change and one that employers in those sorts of settings are very concerned about. And it's not just sexual harassment, it's harassment for any protected characteristic. So age, sex, race, disability, you know, all of those things. Um so yeah, it's it it creates a huge new um area of liability for employers.

SPEAKER_00 8:12

I would like to think that everybody in the world would agree with me, but you know, harassment in any way, shape, or form is not okay. So fabulous to see things that kind of um bolster that and as much as we're seeing with this. But I guess my concern is as an employer, how am I supposed to stop someone that is not under my control, customers in particular? You know, we all know what it's like when you go to a restaurant, not okay, but when you go to a restaurant and it's horrible, as an employer, how am I controlling that? And then also how am I liable for that? I feel it almost feels as it needs to be legislation that covers the way the customer's acting, but that not necessarily the employer being liable for it. I suppose, unless it's a case of the employer's tolerating it and kind of letting it happen. I can see that being being liable for the actions of someone that I have no control over. That feels like a lot.

SPEAKER_01 9:05

Yeah. And I think that's where it comes down to how the employer um approaches these kind of complaints. So it will be important to make sure that staff are trained on what isn't is not acceptable, what to do if they are experiencing harassment. So in a restaurant setting, they're waiting for a table, someone says something, there's a supervisor or a manager that they go and report it to, and it's dealt with, like you say, is not, you know, just accepted and turned a blind eye or get someone else to go and deal with that table, you know, it's that kind of thing. So I think that training around it, having a policy, having a clear reporting process is going to be really important for employers to be compliant with this obligation. But um, if you think about it in a different setting, I don't know, if you have your largest client who is sexually harassing a member of staff, you know, that potentially causes huge financial loss to the organization for reprimanding that client um and losing their business. But you know, that is what is expected to happen now. And yeah, you know, rightly so.

SPEAKER_00 10:17

It should, yeah, completely agree. Yeah. Okay. Sticking with October, and then we've got tribunal time limits doubling. Hey.

unknown 10:28

Yeah.

Managing Customer Misconduct

SPEAKER_00 10:29

How do we feel about this one? So, where are we now in terms of tribunal time limits and how's the doubling significant and does it increase legal exposure for employers?

Tribunal Time Limits Double

SPEAKER_01 10:39

Yeah, so again, this goes back to what we were speaking about in our first part of the podcast about the current strain on the employment tribunal system, unfortunately. So, currently, the um deadline that you have to issue a claim if you want to is three months from whenever the thing has happened that you are complaining about. So, three months from the date that you got dismissed, three months from when you were discriminated against, that kind of thing. And it's a pretty short time limit, you know, that can go pretty quickly. Um, so what is being proposed now is as you say, that will double. So you will have six months to bring a claim, which you know, in the grand scheme of the deadlines that you have to bring other types of claims outside of employment law. So for breach of contract, for example, in the civil courts, you have six years. Um so yeah, yeah. So you know, six months in the grand in that sense, it seems you know, still like quite a lot, a short period of time. Um but I think the intention behind that is to reflect the fact that three months is is really short. And if you have somebody who perhaps has a claim as a result of you know maternity or pregnancy discrimination and they have just had a baby, that three-month period is just gone in the blink of an eye. And so by extending it to six months, again, it's meant to be making sure that everybody has access to justice and um, you know, proper time to put a case together or to seek legal advice or um to take things further when they feel ready to do so. Um, rather than, you know, a lot of people don't even know about this deadline and they they think about things for a while and then think, oh, I'd like to I think I'll see if I can do something about that and they're out of time.

SPEAKER_00 12:32

Yeah, I and do you know what? I feel like I know last time we were talking about how some of the things in this act, it just feels like we're tidying up things that just don't quite feel never quite felt right. I think this is definitely one of them. I think I mean I think part of the problem with tribunal time limits at the moment, which you've kind of alluded to, is I think people know about them. So, like you say, people think about stuff and then they think, oh okay, well, it's been a few months afterwards, I want to do something, and then as you say, they're they're timed out. Um, and also, you know, bringing something to a tribunal is a big deal. Like you kind of need the space and the time to digest that, understand the process, figure out if it's the right thing for you, and three months doesn't kind of sit right. So, this to me feels like a common sense change. I think it's gonna be frustrating for employers because normally, you know, you've got that we're counting down, aren't we? And it it means that we're increasing that time. But ultimately, I suppose the thing is if you're doing things in the correct way in the first place, then you haven't really got to worry about this stuff, have you?

SPEAKER_01 13:27

No, exactly. And I think that actually that kind of classic um, you know, you would sort of count the time to see after someone had left you see if you were expecting that they might take it forward, you'd kind of be like, okay, three months time, we don't need to worry about that. In reality, because of the pressures on the employment tribunal, that's not happening, you know, that that time you can get a claim months later um out of the blue. So um, yeah, so that that doesn't happen necessarily anymore, anyway. But yeah, I mean, I think that it it makes sense. And equally it might be that that means people have more time to take legal advice, or actually they have more time where their life moves on. I mean, in my experience, people are very angry when things first happen or they feel wronged, but then you go and get another job, or you know, something else happens, and in a few months' time you don't feel so strongly about it. And so that it may have that beneficial effect as well, that actually, you know, that they don't necessarily result in more claims. Although I think that the the impact assessment is that it probably will result in an increase.

SPEAKER_00 14:37

Yeah, no, I I agree, but then you've also got that compounding issue in terms of the resourcing within the tribunal system anyway. So it feels like we're kind of going around in circles a little bit in terms of yes, a longer time to bring something, but it doesn't, you're not gonna have it heard sooner because we haven't got the resources, that's the problem.

SPEAKER_01 14:52

No, exactly.

SPEAKER_00 14:54

So one step forward, one step back, but uh I feel like it's positive.

SPEAKER_01 14:59

Yeah, I think so. I think so. I think that yeah, it's it's not a huge in the as I say, in the grand scheme of things, it's not still not a huge time limit. Um, it's not like it's years and years.

The 2027 Big Change: Unfair Dismissal

SPEAKER_00 15:10

Okay, alrighty. So that kind of sees us out to the end of um um 2026, and it brings us to the biggie, the showstopper in 2027. So for those of you who haven't been kind of following what's happening with this act, we're now talking about kind of how how unfair dismissal is going to change. And for me, this is the biggie, right? This is the one that I think is going to impact a lot of employers and a lot of employees, really. So tell us a little bit about what I'm talking about. What why is this the change with unfair dismissal such a big deal?

Practical Impact On Claims

SPEAKER_01 15:43

Yeah, so currently you have to work for your employer for at least two years before you can gain the right to claim unfair dismissal. So, up until that point, you can be dismissed at any point for any reason, without following a process, and you can there's nothing you can do about it unless you have other claims for discrimination or whistleblowing and that kind of thing. Um, and that's a really long time, two years, to work for someone and have really no employment rights. And so the Labour government, this was like top of the agenda. This was one of their flagship things that they said through the um, you know, their campaigning in the election for um for them to be in power, that they said we're going to abolish that and we're going to make it a day one right so that from your very first day of employment, if you're dismissed, then you will have the ability to claim unfair dismissal. Um, obviously hugely unpopular with businesses. And so there had then been, when the bill went was introduced into parliament, a very complicated arrangement where they said there would be um an initial period of employment during which they would have to follow a lighter touch procedure, and no one really knew what any of that meant. It sounded a bit like a probation period, but no one was really sure. It was going to be a nine-month period, which just seemed bizarre. Um, anyway, so when this was going through parliament, that was heavily opposed because it just made things really complicated. And so then someone cleverly in the House of Lords said, Why don't we just have a six-month period where you have to have worked for your employer for at least six months instead of two years, and then everyone knows where they stand. Um and so actually, I think great idea that makes it much more straightforward. And so, yeah, now you will have to have worked from January. We think it's going to be January 2027. You have to have worked for your employer for at least six months um before you can claim unfair dismissal. So that that's where we've landed. Um, so that is expected to mean I think the stats are that about six million employee more employees will gain the right to claim unfair dismissal, which um employers don't like, but it will be much more popular for employees. So when I have employees coming to me and saying I've been sacked and I've worked for my employer for you know nearly two years, what can I do about it? And I say nothing, it you know, that is doesn't give anyone protection, job security, you know, anything at all. So six months seems like a reasonable period to me. It aligns with what a lot of probation periods are already. Um really within six months you'll know whether someone is right for you, you know, the role that you've employed them for, the right person for your business. Um, so I think it makes sense. I don't know what you think.

Probation, Process, And Documentation

SPEAKER_00 18:43

I think, you know, I know we've talked about it a lot where this is kind of this act kind of tidies up some of the kind of niggly things that we have in terms of employment law. Yeah, it feels fair because I feel like the two-year period, whilst it's definitely been something that I know kind of clients and employers have relied on in the past, it it never quite felt right because it felt like too long a period of time. Whereas six months, I think, probably does feel just about that, and also, you know, and it's my my own personal opinion, caveatted, but you know, usually people can kind of have a bit of a mask on and pretend to be what you want them to be for about a period of three months. People can't usually last you know, four to six months of pretending to be something that they're not. So, provided you've got like a clear probationary period, I think if it ties in with this, I think that makes sense. It just means from my perspective that employers need to get much better at dealing with problems because you I'm sure you see it every day in your line of work. But people will come to me and say, Oh, Trish, we've had this person and they've been underperforming for the last three years, and I'm like, Well, why haven't we done something about that sooner? Oh, it was just easier to leave it, we didn't want to upset the apple cart. That kind of thing just isn't going to be okay anymore, or at least uh it will be okay, but what you're able to do with about it from a legal perspective is gonna be very, very different. So I think a good thing. I think it pushes people to deal with things sooner. And you know, when I think about those kind of scenarios, if you've had somebody that's in an organization underperforming for years, they're probably not happy either. Do you know what I'm saying? Unless they're unaware, they're probably unhappy. So I think things like this will probably help from a practical perspective to deal with that kind of stuff, but I guess only time will tell. We'll have to see. And you said January, so we're not going for the um April-October with this particular thing.

SPEAKER_01 20:28

Yeah, I think because they have now reached this certainty about the six-month thing, and one of the other things that was agreed to kind of get it through, was that they would remove there's currently a cap on how much compensation you can recover for an employment trial, um, sorry, an unfair dismissal claim, um, which is either a year's salary or a cap that the government increased every year, which at the moment is about 118,000. So your salary, annual salary if it's lower or that as a maximum. Um, and they decided that they would abolish that. And so, as part of that, they're now saying, yeah, it's going to all come in um January 2027. What it some commentators are saying is that they think that actually this might make employment tribunal claims slightly more straightforward. Because what we see at the moment, because of that two-year time limit, when employees realise that they haven't got the required, you know, length of service to be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and you say, Oh, but you could bring a discrimination claim. Have there been any issues in respect to that? They try and kind of sometimes shoehorn a claim into, you know, oh yeah, I think yeah, there was some discrimination because, you know, this, that, and the other. But discrimination claims and whistleblowing claims, the employment tribunal automatically classes more complicated and need at least a hearing of two or more days, which then clogs up the system. leads to you know increases all these delays whereas unfair dismissal claims they class as more straightforward and can be dealt with within a day so potentially it could mean that yeah the claims go back to being about what they're actually about I think it wasn't right that I was dismissed and I and bringing a claim on that basis.

SPEAKER_00 22:19

Okay and that would be good wouldn't it provide a little bit more kind of closure for people quickly hopefully fingers crossed.

SPEAKER_01 22:26

But I think as you say managing having probation periods and managing them is going to be so important to this because so often people want to avoid having the difficult conversations. They never you know bring up performance issues or conduct concerns that that that should be dealt with. So I think you know having sort of a probation period in place with regular review points and properly documenting if there are concerns or issues or more training required that's then you know put in an email so that then when you get to the point if it's not going to be that that person's employee can is not going to continue, it's not a shock to them. You've already had you know various conversations you've told them what the concerns are which will then hopefully reduce the risk of them wanting to bring a claim because you have laid the groundwork. So that is going to be absolutely key to this and again manager training and everything else so that they're doing all these things and they understand the reasons why rather than it just being you know an another thing they've got to do or sort of admin probation is not going to be an admin thing anymore. It's going to be really important to help defend claims um for unfair dismissal.

SPEAKER_00 23:46

I think you make a really important part a pretty important point about communication there because I would say pretty much all of the work that I do when I'm fixing a problem is a miscommunication. It's somebody hasn't understood or something hasn't been communicated which has then led somebody to feel a certain type of way which in a lot of times is you know very valid that communication is so important and particularly tied in with this point in terms of people understanding where they're at um because what I tend to find when things go wrong with vacation period is just the employees got no clue. The signals haven't been clear enough. So I think that's really really important for people to remember there about getting across clear messages within the right timescales.

SPEAKER_01 24:31

Yeah absolutely and yeah dealing with the right the right things which is maybe that's conversation for another day.

Zero Hours: Predictability Rights

SPEAKER_00 24:46

Alrighty look we'll stick with 2027 because we're almost there actually I feel like there was a lot less in 2027. So we've also got changes to zero hours contracts and know we've talked about this quite a lot before. So what's happening here? So I know what they're trying to do is bring a bit more kind of predictability a bit more security so how are things going to change in 2027?

Admin Burdens And Seasonal Work

SPEAKER_01 25:07

Are we getting rid of zero hours contracts or is it just that things are going to be kind of um strengthened a little bit more in terms of how they work yeah so again this is another I wouldn't say a U-turn but a definite a definite softening on what the government had initially or the Labour Party had initially said they wanted to do. So initially they were saying they were going to ban exploitative zero hours contracts and they politically were very unpopular and that has been watered down somewhat um we spoke about this on the previous podcast in terms of what was being proposed and unfortunately is still really complicated. I think this is the worst bit of the Employment Rights Act in terms of what's proposed here which will mean that there need to be lots of regulations in place to to actually bring it into force so lots more kind of detail to to to come but essentially the headlines of what's being proposed is that um you can still have zero hour contracts so they they can still be used but there um there will be sort of uh additional rights relating to them. So for example um you an employee will um have the right to be offered a guaranteed hours contract where they are regularly working a certain number of hours um you know per week and that's going to be looking back over a previous 12 week period so if you were on a zero hour contract or you were on a contract for a low number of hours but you're regularly working say 20 hours a week an employer will have to say okay now you're regular working 20 hours we're going to offer you a contract for 20 hours and so they they have to do that and at the moment it looks like you will have to do that every 12 weeks um so the admin burden there is awful um for employers who kind of use these these types of arrangements so that bit is going to be quite difficult to manage. The other bit that that is being imposed that you have to give reasonable notice of shifts and you have to um be compensated for shifts that are cancelled or cut short um at the last you know without without good notice. Again going back to kind of what we've said about a lot of these changes makes sense you know that that should be how um people um are notified of you know that when they're required to work and again that's meant to provide more security and stability and mean that people can plan their lives and their caring responsibilities and everything else. So that bit isn't as bad but it's yeah it's the guaranteed hours which it has been really un you know controversial unpopular um what is proposed because some people are saying look actually zero hour contracts work really well for me I'm a student and I like the flexibility or I've got my own business and I don't mind working like this or I'm retired. But equally there you know there are businesses who use them for seasonal work and things like that. And so there had been when the bill was going through Parliament quite a lot of discussions around should there be an exclusion for seasonal workers um like people picking fruit crops or you know manning ice cream stands in the summer or whatever. But that hasn't been um carried through. So um again we need more regulations on this there will be further consultations on this um but yeah it it it's admin heavy and so it will really rely on having good systems in place to track the shifts that are being worked so that you can check the guaranteed hour you know requirement but also where they're being cut short or changed employers potentially will need to change their normal practices to um to accommodate whatever these new rules are about what that reasonable notice will need to be to make any changes.

SPEAKER_00 29:11

I feel like zero hours contracts um really kind of divide opinions so I'm I'm a big fan of TikTok so I do a lot of TikTok videos whenever I do one on zero hours I get a real kind of divide in terms of you were alluding to earlier some people absolutely love them and they just really fit around their work life they've obviously been treated fairly and looked after well other people absolutely hate them and that you know they're the worst thing in the world so it's I always find there's never anybody in between no spectrum on that end of the spectrum so definitely have more likes yeah I I definitely agree with we need more reforms around it but I think I don't know I felt like Bumble starting to talk about exploitative zero hours contracts it almost kind of demonised it when actually there's quite a lot of people that do like them. It's just as with anything there are organisations that don't use them in a fair way I suppose it's kind of finding balance so that people can still use them um but not alienate the people that like them because it seems like there's quite a lot of people that like them.

Mandatory Menopause Action Plans

SPEAKER_01 30:08

I was surprised yeah exactly and I think you know going back to that point about the whole intention behind this is to sort of recognise modern working practices well that is working practice you know what with that and the gig economy and everything else you know people didn't work like this 20 years ago but you know we do now um and so I think it's intended to sort of build a bit more regulation around it and whether it changes so you know one of the suggestions had been instead of employers having to offer the guaranteed hours it could just be a right for an employee to request it you know that then gives that flexibility of people who are like no I'm fine I like this arrangement I don't want to change it you know so I wouldn't be surprised if we see some changes to what's currently proposed particularly as this is kind of one of the later um changes that we're looking out for that yeah it might be that we don't end up this coming in in in the form it looks like right now my hunch is they've put the things later on where they think they're gonna be a little bit there's gonna be a little bit of change obviously um don't know that but it just gives more scope doesn't it to be able to shape things and more time yeah definitely the ones that are more complicated I think they've definitely kicked the can down the road a bit and then the last one that we've got for 2027 is around menopause so this one is a mandatory menopause action plans um tell us a little bit about that what when we say mandatory what do we mean what what is a menopause action plan tell us a little bit more yeah so I mean this one is um again I think meant to reflect modern working practices um essentially what it is is that large employers so employers with more than 250 employees will be required to put together an equality action plan so it is then required to provide information about prescribed things which at the moment all that has been prescribed is um gender pay and menopause so essentially what employers are doing within their organisations to um address those two areas and the policy intent behind it I think is definitely to do with the gender pay gap because employers have large employers over 250 employees have been required to report their gender pay gap for some time and sometimes what they're doing is reporting it but actually then they don't have an action plan in terms of what what's being done and so the government have said actually they think the gender pay gap is not closing as quickly as they would like it's sitting at around 13-14% and so they want more proactive steps to be taken to deal with it. So um menopause then links quite closely to that because I think the stats are that one in 10 women who are going through the menopause leave work because of the symptoms that they're experiencing. So that is then uh resulting in the more senior employees who would be being paid more leaving the workforce which is then having an impact on the gender pay um gap. But also you're losing some really great you know talent and experience um within your organisations and people are working later um so again just reflects the reality of I think normal working um life and these things um you know being something that employers are having to deal with and that people are speaking about more within you know the organisation and having to deal with so um I think that makes sense. I think the fact that they've said prescribed matters relating to equality is interesting and it leaves it open for other things. I know that certainly when this was going through parliament there was a debate around whether menstruation should um be included as well you know what are you doing to support women who have conditions like endometriosis or PMDD and that kind of thing um which they haven't included at the moment but I think potentially the way it's worded it leaves it open that that could be potentially broadened. And we also then have um the proposal for disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting to come into force as well. It's not part of the Employment Rights Act but it's something that's been kind of going on in the background. So yeah you can see that all of these things are meant to be um sort of uh enforcing positive change uh to do with equality which you know the the intention behind it is uh absolutely great and should be happening.

SPEAKER_00 35:06

Yeah we can't really argue with positive change around equality no exactly and wouldn't lie um all right look I think that's all of my questions so we've done October 26th to the things that are coming in 27.

Equality, Pay Gaps, And Reporting

SPEAKER_01 35:20

Anything else that you think it's important for listeners and watchers to know no I would just say keep a close eye on all of this because it is yes we have the Employment Rights Act that now you know is in its final form but there are lots of consultations ongoing um that if businesses listening to this don't agree with some of the stuff we've said this is your chance to you know to respond to those consultations and to to shape um how this is you know how this is actually going to end up looking I know that there's lots of you know the equality action plans for example I've been working with a menopause charity who are speaking with the government about um what they think needs to be you know included in that so that there is lots of consultations and opportunities to to get involved to to shape it um but certainly until it's in legally in in force and each of these dates are a kind of hit then um we don't know exactly what it will end up looking like so um keep a close eye on it um if you're unsure Trish and I are more than happy to um to advise further on on what the current status is and what you should be doing.

SPEAKER_00 36:40

And if people want to get hold of you, how do they get hold of you? What's the best way?

SPEAKER_01 36:44

Yeah so um always give me a call drop me an email send me a message on LinkedIn anything like that I'm always more than happy to you know to have a no obligation chat just to see how I can help. So yeah feel free to reach out.

SPEAKER_00 36:58

Amazing look thank you so much for your time um I've learned a lot today so thank you that's been really really helpful because there were some bits that just didn't quite make sense and you always make things make sense so thank you thank you for your time and your brain really appreciate it. And hopefully I'll see you again soon and we can do more. I mean hopefully we're not going to get changes as big as this again um but as others come we shall do more podcasts.

SPEAKER_01 37:21

Absolutely and I think as some of these come into you know come into effect and actually employers start dealing with them I think there's that you know there's more to learn from from that as well. So yeah always happy to join you on your podcast Trish it's always really helpful for me too.

SPEAKER_00 37:37

Amazing thank you so much I'll let you go back to lawyering um and hopefully we'll speak to you soon. Thank you