Skip to content

From 19 June 2026, a significant change to UK data protection law has come into force under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (“DUAA”). This change introduces a statutory requirement for all data controllers to implement a formal internal process to handle data protection complaints.

A new statutory right to complain 

Historically, individuals could complain directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but organisations were not expressly required to operate their own internal complaints procedure.

The DUAA has amended this position by inserting a new section 16A into the Data Protection Act 2018. Under the DUAA data controllers now must:

  • give data subjects a way of making data protection complaints directly;
  • acknowledge receipt of complaints within 30 days of receiving them;
  • without undue delay, take appropriate steps to respond to complaints, including making appropriate enquiries, and keep people informed; and
  • without undue delay, tell people the outcome of their complaints.

The intent of the legislation is to encourage early resolution of disputes and reducing regulatory involvement where issues can be resolved directly.

Practical impact on employers

Whilst the intent of the legislation is to encourage resolution of disputes over data related issues at an early stage, in reality this change is likely to result in a heavier compliance and administrative load for employers.

Greater attention will be now paid to the robustness of internal complaint procedures, particularly the way complaints are recognised, examined and resolved, and organisations may need to commit more time and resource to ensure investigations are carried out thoroughly.

What sort of complaint can a data subject make?

Data subjects may submit a complaint to an organisation where they believe an organisation has failed to comply with data protection law whilst handling their personal data.

This could include complaints in relation to an organisation’s response to a subject access request or in relation to their data use, sharing, accuracy, retention and security issues.

Practical ICO guidance

The ICO has published new Guidance on preparing for data protection complaints, which sets out practical steps organisations that act as data controllers should take:

  • Organisations must ensure that individuals are able to submit data protection complaints directly in line with the DUAA eg via a complaint form, email, telephone etc.
  • Organisations must inform individuals of their right to complain, including in privacy notices, and provide clear, plain‑language explanations of the process.
  • Once a complaint is received, organisations must acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 30 days and then investigate the issue without undue delay.
  • Once the investigation is completed, the complainant must be informed about the outcome without an unjustifiable or excessive delay, with a clear explanation of the steps that have been taken to resolve the complaint and any actions taken.
  • Individuals must also be informed of their right to complain to the ICO and be provided with the ICO’s contact details.

We would encourage members to review this guidance.

Failure to handle complaints

A failure to handle complaints correctly and in line with the guidance will likely result in further escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office which may result in investigations and/ or regulatory action (depending on the seriousness). Outside of this, there is also a risk of reputational damage if a complaint is mishandled.

Key takeaways

Organisations should now take immediate steps to implement a clear internal process for handling data protection complaints, ensuring processes are in place to record complaints received, update their privacy notices and train staff on any new procedures and how to handle complaints.

We are currently drafting a template procedure that can be adapted to your organisation and we will share this in the next week.

Our Mock Tribunal, held at the Culloden Hotel, offered attendees an authentic and practical understanding of Employment Tribunal proceedings. The event centred on a case involving claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, brought by a female employee dismissed after making inappropriate comments to a manager, colleague, and customer.

Kathryn O’Lone, Senior Employment Solicitor, represented the Claimant, while Michelle McGinley, Managing Director, acted for the Company. We were honoured to have Eileen McBride CBE, former President of the Employment Tribunal, preside as Judge, and Sara Plower, Employment Lawyer, open the case as Clerk.

Setting the Scene

Before the hearing commenced, Karen Moore, Senior Employment Lawyer & Head of Training, guided attendees through the process leading up to a tribunal, explaining what typically happens before a case reaches hearing and what to expect on the day.

The Hearing

The proceedings began with the Claimant’s cross-examination, which prompted some attendees to reconsider their views on the likely outcome. After a brief interval, the Company presented its evidence and underwent cross-examination. What truly set this session apart was its unscripted nature; questions and responses developed organically, mirroring the pace and unpredictability of a real tribunal hearing.

Participation & Learning

Trainee barristers Joel Hames and Falon McLean appeared as witnesses, experiencing the genuine pressure of cross-examination. This provided the opportunity to observe several key aspects:

  • The experience of giving evidence under questioning
  • The importance of consistency and clarity in responses
  • How evidence is tested and challenged during a hearing
  • The impact of detail on how a case is interpreted

Attendees gained a genuine insight into the challenges of giving evidence and the significance of every word in a tribunal setting.

Feedback all praised its realism, with many participants commenting on the value of seeing a tribunal played out in such a practical real time environment. One attendee commented their only regret was not attending sooner.

Thank you to all who attended.

On 2 June 2026, In Great Britain the Government launched a Consultation on how it will implement new rules for zero hours and low hours contracts under the Employment Rights Act 2025. The Consultation is open until 25 August 2026.

What is changing?

Three new core rights are being proposed:

  1. Right to guaranteed hours

Workers on zero hours or low hours contracts may be entitled to a contract that reflects what they work. This applies where they regularly work more hours over a defined reference period (likely to be 12 weeks). Workers can either accept the new guaranteed hours or stay on their existing arrangement. This creates an obligation to assess working patterns and potentially offer new contracts

  1. Right to reasonable notice of shifts

Workers must be given reasonable notice of changes to shifts. The exact definition of “reasonable” is still being consulted on, but suggested ranges include:

  • 1–4 weeks for direct workers
  • Shorter periods being considered for agency workers

If notice is too short, workers may be able to bring a tribunal claim

  1. Right to compensation for short notice changes

Workers will be entitled to a payment if shifts are: cancelled; shortened or moved at short notice. “Short notice” could be anything between 1 and 7 days with payment will likely be a percentage of expected earnings. However, there will be no payment where the worker caused the change and/or the shift was voluntarily swapped.

Who will qualify?

Workers may qualify if:

  • They are on zero hours contracts, or
  • Their guaranteed hours fall below a set threshold.

The Government is proposing a threshold between: 8 – 20 hours per week. This is one of the most important areas for employer input during the consultation. In relation the reference period, the Government’s preferred option is 12 weeks but it is also considering 26 weeks or 52 weeks. The consultation also asks how these periods will repeat, which will directly impact record‑keeping burdens

What counts as “regular” work?

Two approaches are being considered:

Option A: Worker must work a minimum number of weeks (e.g. 8 out of 12)

Option B: Must meet the above AND work a minimum number of excess hours.

Seasonal and temporary work

Employers may not need to offer guaranteed hours where work is genuinely temporary. Accepted reasons include: for a specific task, temporary event; and/or temporary demand. However, the Government recognises this may not fully cover seasonal work and is seeking views.

Agency workers

Agency workers are included in this proposal and typically, the hirer would be responsible for guaranteed hours. However, responsibility could shift to agencies in some scenarios.

Enforcement and penalties

  • Most rights will be enforced via employment tribunals
  • Short notice payments may also be enforced by the Fair Work Agency

Proposed penalty: is 50% of arrears with a minimum of £100 and maximum £5,000 per worker.

The position in Northern Ireland

The position in Northern Ireland remains separate given devolved employment law.

The Good Jobs Bill is currently in the Executive and at this stage due to concerns with trade union access, there is no consent at Executive level which is required to allow it to proceed to be debated in the Assembly.

Within the Bill, proposals on zero hours contracts are expected to align more closely with the Republic of Ireland model, introducing banded hours arrangements, rather than the GB model.

This is a significantly different approach to that being proposed in Great Britain.

Furthermore, in Northern Ireland the proposals currently only extend to employees.

However, the Way Forward document suggests this could be extended to agency workers and those on low hours contracts. Additionally Northern Ireland is proposing a longer reference period of 26 weeks, and it would operate as a right to request banded hours not a right to offer.

Employers Federation with 20 other business groups across Northern Ireland have published the following statement:

“The NI business community stand united in strongly condemning the violence, disorder and intimidation witnessed in recent days across Northern Ireland.

There can be no justification for attacks on people, property or communities. Such actions undermine the values of respect, inclusion and mutual understanding that are essential to a peaceful and prosperous society.

Northern Ireland’s economy and public services depend on people from many backgrounds who have chosen to live and work here. Migrant workers make a vital contribution across every sector of our economy, including health and social care, hospitality, manufacturing, construction, agri-food, retail and professional services. Their skills, commitment and entrepreneurship help sustain businesses, strengthen public services and enrich our communities.

Northern Ireland has worked hard to build a reputation as a welcoming place to live, work, visit and invest. Images of violence and division risk damaging that reputation at a time when we are seeking to attract tourists, international talent, investment and raise living standards. Such incidents create unnecessary harm to local communities.

As representatives of the business community, we believe our future prosperity depends on creating a society that is open, inclusive and welcoming to all. We reject attempts to sow division and fear, and we stand with all those who are working to promote respect, safety and community cohesion.

We urge everyone to reject violence, support the rule of law and work together to ensure Northern Ireland remains a place where all people are treated with dignity and respect.”

Business in the Community Northern Ireland Construction Employers Federation (CEF)
Dairy Council for Northern Ireland CBI Northern Ireland FSB Northern Ireland (Federation of Small Businesses) HOSPITALITY ULSTER IoD Northern Ireland ManufacturingNI NORTHERN IRELAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association – NIFDA Northern Ireland Hotels Federation NORTHERN IRELAND GRAIN TRADE ASSOCIATION LIMITED NORTHERN IRELAND MEAT EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION LTD NI Poultry Industry Federation Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance (NITA) Northern Ireland Retail Consortium British Retail Consortium, NI Pork and Bacon Forum Retail NI Mineral Products Association Ulster Farmers Union

A Statement on behalf of CBI NI, Employers Federation Northern Ireland, FSB NI, IOD NI, Manufacturing NI and NI Chamber

BUSINESS GROUPS WELCOME MOVEMENT ON ‘GOOD JOBS’ BILL BUT WARN SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS REMAIN

“We welcome the Minister’s decision to exempt micro-businesses from the proposed trade union access provisions. This recognises the pressures facing our smallest employers, but it does not address the wider concerns the Employment Rights Bill continues to raise for businesses of all sizes.

“We have spent the last decade navigating low growth, EU exit, the pandemic and sustained cost pressures. These are not abstract challenges; they shape decisions on investment, recruitment and growth every day.

“We continually test and assess the mood of those we represent, including in this past week. We have a responsibility to speak honestly on their behalf. Small, large, homegrown and FDI employers accept that employment laws should be updated but as has been heard directly by the Minister and the Department, they have not been convinced and remain alarmed at some of the proposals.

“Our concern remains that legislation of this scale cannot be properly scrutinised within the time available, given its potentially far-reaching consequences for employers and employees alike. We have now learned that much of the detail, including the legal requirements on employers, will be left to secondary legislation, meaning key aspects of the framework may never receive the full and transparent consultation and Assembly scrutiny that proposals of this significance require.

“Issues remain across several areas but, on trade union access, there remains deep concern that the proposals go well beyond international norms and, even with Friday’s proposed easement, it would remain one of the most expansive workplace access regimes anywhere in the world.

“If any statutory rights of access are to be considered, they must be matched by equivalent legal protections for frontline managers and staff. The final framework must include robust and workable safeguards for employers in primary legislation, and there remains a need for much more engagement on both trade union access and recognition.

“We all want to see good legislation which improves protections for employees and for good firms. Getting this law right is important so we continue to press for a balanced and workable approach that supports constructive employee relations while safeguarding Northern Ireland as a place to invest, grow and create jobs.

“We have written to the Minister seeking an urgent meeting with the 22 signatories to our April 2026 letter so that the business community can engage directly and constructively on the significant issues this Bill still presents.”

 

Headline news on 21 May 2026 was that, in Great Britain, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has updated its Goods and Services Code of Practice, which was laid in Parliament by the Minister for Women and Equalities. It is important to note that this Code applies in Great Britain and only to goods and services (and related public functions and associations), not to employment.

Therefore, the Code does not relate to the employment practices of businesses, charities or voluntary bodies. Employment is covered by a different Statutory Code of Practice. The last Code of Practice on Employment is dated 2019 and has not yet been updated following the Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 that held sex means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010. The EHRC website currently states:

For businesses, charities and voluntary bodies, the practical impact is that the updated guidance is relevant to them if and when they provide services, exercise public functions and/or operate as associations.

In respect of the Code of Practice for Employment the ECHR website states:

Following the Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 this Codes of Practice in under review

The most substantial updates in this Services Code are to reflect the Supreme Court decision which found that sex  means biological sex under the Equality Act 2010.

This Code is not limited to sex but covers all nine protected characteristics of:

  • age
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • marriage and civil partnership
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation

The updated Code runs to over 300 pages and:

  • Clarifies that associations can lawfully cater for people who share one protected characteristic; more than one protected characteristic; or a particular combination of protected characteristics.
  • Clarifies when different conditions may meet the definition of disability, including hidden impairments, fluctuating conditions and neurodiverse conditions, and makes the explanations of reasonable adjustments for disabled people clearer.
  • Updates examples relating to indirect discrimination, group disadvantage, discrimination arising from disability and age-related harassment. It also includes additional examples relating to gender reassignment and digital or online scenarios.
  • Clarifies what service providers should consider when deciding whether separate and single-sex services are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; when mixed-sex services may be necessary; and the potential legal implications of providing only mixed-sex services.
  • Provides more detail on when it may be objectively justifiable for service providers to make enquiries about an individual’s sex, and how to manage those situations while maintaining compliance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private and family life).
  • Clarifies when participation in competitive sporting events can be lawfully restricted by sex to ensure fairness and safety, and what organisers should consider where trans people would be affected..

The position in Northern Ireland

The position in Northern Ireland is complicated by the Northern Ireland Protocol and Article 2 (the “dedicated mechanism”), which is intended to ensure there is no diminution of rights including in relation to discrimination matters. We recently wrote about another Supreme Court case (Re Dillon) and how that found that Northern Ireland may have to interpret laws in a way that keeps pace with EU law.

In December 2025, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland lodged an application to the High Court seeking a declaration on the application of For Women Scotland in Northern Ireland. That case has yet to be heard and we will keep members updated.

Since Brexit, many employers have sought to fill skill gaps by recruiting from abroad and sponsoring workers. Before April 2024, the visa salary threshold for a Skilled Worker was £26,200 and in April 2024 that dramatically increased to £38,700 and increased again to £41,700 in July 2025.

These significant increases have created real issues for employers when considering if they can renew and/or continue sponsoring the skilled worker. As a result, some employees risk losing their jobs because employers cannot meet the Home Office’s much higher salary levels.

Employers cannot employ these workers under the old, lower salary thresholds. Raising salaries to satisfy the eligibility criteria is not usually an option as to comply with the Home Office rules employers must pay the ‘standard’ salary rate, or the ‘going rate’ for the job, whichever is higher. It could also create other difficulties including potential litigation from colleagues performing similar roles at lower pay.

This was the issue considered in the recent case Surya Dhakal v FinTrU Limited. In that case, we successfully represented the employer in demonstrating that the dismissal was fair when he was dismissed as his job no longer met the higher salary threshold.

Background

Mr Dhakal, was employed by FinTrU on a skilled worker visa following the expiration of his graduate visa. FinTrU assisted him throughout the visa transition process and supported his family’s relocation to the UK.

When the Home Office increased the salary thresholds for skilled worker visas in 2024, Mr Dhakal’s existing salary no longer met the new requirements. FinTrU used an automatic notification system to alert sponsored workers whose visas were set to expire within six months. Mr Dhakal

received this notification but did not take action to review his status. FinTrU also met with Mr Dhakal to assess if his circumstances had changed and explored if he could continue working in another way for example if his partner’s job qualified for sponsorship. The company also gave Mr Dhakal access to specialist immigration advice.

Mr Dhakal made suggestions such as increasing his salary solely to meet the new threshold and extending his visa for five months to give him additional time to seek alternative employment.

After careful consideration, FinTrU declined these proposals and started a formal process, resulting in the termination of his employment, which was upheld on appeal.

Subsequently, Mr Dhakal submitted a complaint to the employment tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal and seeking £250,000 in compensation.

Decision

The Tribunal found that:

  •  FinTru had a fair and lawful reason for dismissal: the expiry of the Mr Dhakal’s right to work in the UK, and the inability to continue sponsorship under the new salary thresholds.
  •  The process adopted by FinTru was reasonable, thorough, and in line with best practice. The company’s efforts to seek expert advice, consult with the employee, and explore alternatives were commended.
  •  The options proposed by Mr Dhakalwere found to be either unlawful, unethical, or unreasonable in the circumstances.
  •  The decision to dismiss was not only fair but also proportionate, and the claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed in its entirety.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case offers several important lessons for employers in similar circumstances:

1. Monitor Legal and Regulatory Changes Closely: Stay abreast of developments that may impact your employees’ right to work, and seek expert advice as soon as changes are announced.

2. Engage Early and Transparently: Open communication with affected employees is essential. Involve them in discussions, explain the situation clearly, and document all interactions.

3. Explore All Reasonable Alternatives: Consider every viable option, but ensure that any proposals are lawful, ethical, and fair to all employees.

4. Consult External Experts: Where the law is complex or evolving, seek advice from specialists to ensure your decisions are robust and defensible.

5. Follow a Fair Process: a fair procedure must still be followed and for Northern Ireland employers that includes the 3 step statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures.

6. Document Everything: Keep clear records of all advice received, meetings held, and decisions made. This will be invaluable if your actions are ever scrutinised.

On 7 May 2026, HMRC published guidance on how to calculate Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (SPBP) where your payroll software or Basic PAYE Tools cannot correctly calculate payments for Northern Ireland-based employees, for claims relating to a child’s death or miscarriage that happened on or after 6 April 2026.

By way of recap employees are entitled to:

  • SPBP is taken as either 2 consecutive weeks or two separate blocks of 1 week.
  • It must be taken within 56 weeks of the child’s death, a stillbirth, or the date the woman experienced (or became aware of) the miscarriage.
  • It is paid at the statutory rate if the average weekly earnings are £129 or more to qualify. SPBP is paid at the lower of £194.32 per week or 90% of average weekly earnings.

The Guidance sets out Key Definitions

Qualifying child: generally a child under 18 who dies on/after 6 April 2026 (including a stillbirth after the 24th week of pregnancy).

  • Miscarriage: loss of pregnancy before 24 weeks (including certain medical interventions following clinical assessment, as set out in HMRC’s guidance).
  • Relevant week: the week (Sunday to Saturday) immediately before the week in which the bereavement occurred.
  • SPBP length: paid for 1 or 2 complete weeks, taken within 56 weeks.
  • Relevant week: the week (Sunday–Saturday, ending Saturday) immediately before the week in which the bereavement occurred.
  • SPBP length: a weekly payment for 1 or 2 complete weeks (either together or as two separate weeks), to be taken within 56 weeks of the death/stillbirth/miscarriage awareness date.

Action Payroll/HR should take:

  1. A signed Employee Declaration (for example form SPBP3, or your own equivalent).
  2. Identify the Key Dates: start date; date of death/stillbirth (or when the miscarriage was experienced/became known); and the intended SPBP start date.
  3. Calculate the Earnings: actual earnings for the 8 weeks up to the relevant week, and expected earnings for up to the 8 weeks after the bereavement (where needed).
  4. Check that the earnings are (or would be) liable for Class 1 National Insurance.

It then covers some common tricky areas such as:

  • Impact of Backdated pay rises that change the pay in the qualifying period (you may need to recalculate).
  • Overpayments or underpayments during the qualifying period.
  • Allocating earnings to the correct week for the calculation.
  • Salary sacrifice and the impact on earnings.
  • Contractual benefits and what counts as earnings.

The HMRC guidance includes worked examples. The Guidance can be accessed here.

The Department for the Economy (DfE) has opened an initial consultation and survey to inform the co-design of a Northern Ireland Good Jobs Charter (opened 30 April 2026; closes 31 July 2026).

The consultation output is intended to shape the initial design of the Charter, with a further consultation expected later. A co-design group (potentially using the Engagement Forum) will be supported by the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) and DfE, with employer bodies, trade unions and other subject matter experts invited to participate

The survey requires participants to choose a preferred Charter model, then moves into a set of “select all that apply” questions on what initiatives should count as indicators of a good job, structured around the Carnegie UK Trust’s seven job quality measures. (See indicators set out below)

Background- What is the Good Jobs Charter?

 In its response document to the Good Jobs Bill public consultation, the

Executive stated a commitment to “employment rights legislation and a Good

Work Charter” as part of the wider Good Jobs agenda

The Charter is intended to be a separate but complementary strand to the Good

Jobs Employment Rights Bill, to support improved job quality beyond minimum legal

standards

Good Jobs Charter Survey Questions

Question 1 – What “type” of Charter should NI have?

The survey asks if the Charter should be a (1)commitment, an (2) aspiration, or an (3) evidenced guarantee (potentially supported by employee testimony).

There are three options for respondents to choose from:

  • Option 1: Light-touch LRA best-practice guide: a practical guide describing indicators of “good jobs”, without formal assessment or accreditation.
  • Option 2: Specific Code of Practice: non-statutory, but potentially influential (including in tribunal contexts) as a benchmark for acceptable practice.
  • Option 3: Formally assessed Charter: an accreditation-style model with assessment, governance and ongoing administration, potentially linked to policy levers such as procurement conditions.

 While the question presents three options the descriptions under each option are, in our view,  not evenly balanced.

We believe that a light-touch approach that supports improvement without creating new compliance obligations in a labour market where employers are already competing hard for skills and facing new laws is the preferred approach.

However, it appears from the language used in Option 3 (“most impressive”, references to procurement requirements and growth in “good jobs”) it is directing  respondents towards that option. By contrast, Option 1 is described more briefly and more as a guide than as a policy tool.

Question 1-  Seven “Good Job Indicator” Sections

Each section asks employers to identify which initiatives they consider to be “sound indicators of a good job” (asking to select all that apply). The questions are marked required and, in practice, respondents must select at least one option to proceed. After each question the survey also invites “additional comments”,

However, without selecting an option respondents cannot progress to the next question, forcing them to choose at least one of the pre-selected options, even if none are suitable.

This approach risks an outcome of endorsement by default rather than by choice.

Below is a high-level summary of each section, with examples of the options listed under each (not exhaustive):

(i)           Indicator 1: Terms of employment (security, guaranteed hours, underemployment)

  • Sample options: issuing contracts before start date; reviewing actual hours worked; avoiding exploitative zero-hours contracts; publishing rotas well in advance; providing notice (e.g., four weeks) for rota changes; clearer pathways for agency/temporary staff into permanent roles.
  • Commentary: Many options read as operational “how-to” controls that may suit larger employers with HR capacity but can be onerous for smaller workplaces where flexibility is essential and resourcing is tight.

(ii)          Indicator 2: Pay and benefits (pay adequacy and satisfaction)

  • Sample options: Living Wage Foundation membership / paying the Real Living Wage; sick pay for all staff (including day-one sick pay); guaranteed minimum weekly hours (e.g., 16 hours unless requested otherwise); annual pay reviews aiming to match inflation; contractors applying similar conditions to their staff.
  • Commentary: The options may be difficult for SMEs to absorb quickly (especially where margins are tight). It also blends “nice to have” initiatives with items that could become quasi-standards if later tied to procurement.

(iii)        Indicator 3: Health, safety and psychosocial wellbeing (physical injury and mental health)

  • Sample options: a health and wellbeing policy; employee assistance programme; wellbeing questions in staff surveys; managers trained to have wellbeing conversations; mental health training/first aiders; reasonable adjustments for disability; wellbeing action plans with review of impact.
  • Commentary: The options mix measurable outcomes (e.g. retention/ absence) with process indicators (policies, champions, training). For smaller employers, the “policy infrastructure” implied may be disproportionate compared with practical day-to-day management.

(iv)        Indicator 4: Job design and nature of work (skills use, control, progression, purpose)

  • Sample options: anonymised applications; job adverts in clear language and stating flexible working; EDI monitoring/targets; staff EDI groups (e.g., menopause or carers groups); mediation/ADR options; staff engagement forums; voluntary trade union recognition; recycling/cycle-to-work/volunteering policies.
  • Commentary: These are largely organisational development initiatives. Many are positive, but bundling them into a single “job design” indicator can create a sense that a wide set of policies are expected of all employers, regardless of size.

(v)          Indicator 5: Social support and cohesion (peer support and line management)

  • Sample options: regular 1-2-1s and performance reviews; training budgets and development plans; induction plans; staff recognition awards; whistleblowing/raising concerns policies; pulse surveys with action; manager coaching training; evidence of low grievance levels around bullying/harassment.
  • Commentary: The options are extensive and can feel like an “HR maturity model”. For SMEs, the intent may be achievable, but the implied documentation burden could be significant.

(vi)        Indicator 6: Voice and representation (information, involvement, trade unions)

  • Sample options: regular consultation and feedback loops; suggestion mechanisms; monthly team meetings/newsletters; transparency on key decisions/financial information; staff forums; an open approach to trade union engagement (access, facilities, time off for duties, voluntary recognition, collective bargaining where it exists).
  • Commentary: This section is framed strongly around union engagement as a marker of “good jobs”. Many employers will support constructive dialogue, but the options wording can read as a checklist rather than reflecting the diversity of other effective voice arrangements across sectors and sizes.

(vii)       Indicator 7: Work–life balance (hours, overtime and flexibility)

  • Sample options: hybrid/home/mobile working; flexible start/finish; compressed hours; part-time/job share; equipping staff with tools for flexible work; regular review of flexible working; commitments to consider requests within 28 days; ensuring job adverts reference flexibility where appropriate.
  • Commentary: This is one of the more practically framed sections and aligns with current recruitment realities. However, these may be harder to deliver for very small employers without dedicated HR support.

Commentary

Employers in Northern Ireland are already competing in a tough labour market. Any Charter that evolves into a compliance regime, especially if connected to funding or procurement conditions, risks adding cost without clear evidence it will improve productivity or job quality in a way that is sustainable across all sectors.

NI’s economy is predominantly made up of SMEs. Smaller businesses may share these aspirations in principle, but could struggle to achieve in all areas. If the goal is to raise standards, the approach should be proportionate: clear guidance, good-practice examples, and signposting to existing LRA and Equality Commission resources—rather than new quasi-mandatory requirements.

By way of practical response guidance, as the survey requires at least one option to be selected in each section, respondents who do not agree with the available options should choose the closest fit and use the comments fields to explain their position. For example, respondents may note where an option is desirable but not always feasible, should be voluntary, or should apply only where proportionate. Responses may also suggest including an explicit “none of the above / not applicable” option to avoid forced endorsement.

Any Member who wishes to discuss the survey and/or their response in more detail should contact Michelle@eefni.org

 

 

In Great Britain (GB), a number of consultations are under way as the government prepares to implement the rights introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025.

This update summarises key consultations and government responses published since early April 2026, and highlights what is (and is not) planned in Northern Ireland (NI).

1. TRADE UNION WORKPLACE ACCESS

Great Britain

On 8 April 2026 the government published its Response to the consultation on trade unions’ right to access workplaces. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, GB will introduce a statutory right for independent trade unions to engage with workers (in person or digitally) for representation, support, recruitment, organisation and collective bargaining.

A further consultation draft code of practice on trade union right of access is seeking views from all interested parties to ensure the new Code of Practice is clear, practical and balanced. The new Code will be the main source of practical guidance on how access requests should be made, negotiated and implemented, dispute resolution and potential penalties via the Central Arbitration Committee. The Consultation closes on 20 May 2026.

The government plans to bring forward secondary legislation and lay the final Code before Parliament. The new right to access is expected to come into force by October 2026.

The position in Northern Ireland

The Department for the Economy “Way Forward” document (published on 28 April 2025) notes that NI currently provides a limited statutory right of union access in specific situations (for example, during a collective redundancy process). There is no general right of access for day‑to‑day union activity or recruitment discussions.

The Department has confirmed it intends to legislate to introduce a right for trade unions to request workplace access (including digital access). Access is expected to be subject to reasonable conditions (for example, timing and compliance with on‑site health & safety and security requirements). We understand NI may take a different approach to GB and may aligned more closely to what has been described as the lighter touch approach in New Zealand. We will keep Members updated as details emerge.

Employers Federation have also raised Members’ concerns directly with the Department. We were one of 20 business organisations that wrote to the Minister for the Economy highlighting issues with the proposals, including the potential impact of workplace voice and recognition proposals.

2. NDAS AND WORKPLACE HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION

Great Britain

On 15 April 2026 the government launched a consultation to prevent the misuse of non‑disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of workplace harassment or discrimination. This is expected to come into force during 2027 and will make certain NDA terms void where they restrict allegations or disclosures about relevant harassment/discrimination (subject to “excepted agreements”).

The consultation asks for views on:

  • Conditions for “excepted agreements” (for example, independent legal advice, written opt‑in, a 14‑day cooling‑off period, accessible written copies, and limits on what conduct can be covered).
  • Who disclosures can still be made to (for example, law enforcement, regulators, advisers, Acas, trade unions and close family), and whether this should extend to recruiters/prospective employers.
  • Whether protection should extend beyond “workers” to other vulnerable groups (for example, some agency/seconded workers, trainees and certain self‑employed individuals).

The consultation closes on 8 July 2026.

The position in Northern Ireland (and Ireland)

There are currently no proposals to ban NDAs in NI in the same way as the GB consultation.

On 20 November 2024, Ireland brought in a general ban (with limited exceptions) on the use of NDAs where there have been allegations of discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment, connected to employment. Any such NDA will be null and void.

3. TUPE: CALL FOR EVIDENCE

Great Britain

On 8 April 2026 the government launched a call for evidence on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). The government states it wants to strengthen protections for employees affected by transfers and modernise TUPE to improve efficiency.

Whilst there are no specific reform proposals yet the questions asked cover:

  • how TUPE protections work in practice
  • how to determine whether TUPE applies
  • information and consultation requirements
  • guidance and support for employers and representatives
  • changing terms and conditions
  • costs and impacts of transfers (including equality impacts)

The call for evidence closes on 1 July 2026.

The position in Northern Ireland

NI TUPE rules already differ from GB in some areas. For example, employee liability information must be provided within 14 days (rather than 28 days in GB) and pre‑transfer redundancy consultation cannot take place.

Disappointingly, the Department for the Economy has indicated it does not intend to make changes to NI’s TUPE framework at this time, but will keep developments in GB under review and continue engagement with stakeholders.