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.

We are receiving more queries from employers about prescribed medicinal cannabis, and it is increasingly featuring in tribunal claims.

Like any prescribed medicine, it can be lawful for an employee to use it. However, that does not give an employee the right to attend work impaired or to carry out safety‑critical duties if the medication could affect their ability to work safely.

This article summarises the key issues for employers.

1. What is the legal position?

In Northern Ireland, certain cannabis-based medicines can be lawfully prescribed and used. Cannabis remains a controlled drug where it is not prescribed. For employers, the key point is this: a lawful prescription does not override your health and safety duties, or your right to require staff to be fit for work.

Mishandling of this issue by employers can create liability for Tribunal claims such as disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Why this can be difficult: drug tests can show cannabis in the system long after any effects have worn off, and different products (and different THC/CBD levels) can affect people differently. The safest approach is to focus on evidence and risk, not assumptions.

Unlike alcohol (which many employers can ban entirely during working time), prescribed medication is harder to prohibit.

In practice, the question is whether the type of medication, the dose and timing, and the role create a real risk to performance or safety. That should be assessed using evidence and, where appropriate, medical advice.

2. Impairment and safety

Some medicinal cannabis products contain THC, which can affect performance. The impact will depend on the product, dose, how recently it was taken and the individual.

This is most relevant in safety‑critical work (for example, driving, operating machinery, construction, patient care, aviation and security roles).

You can require employees to be fit for work and to do their job safely. If someone is impaired, or if the role cannot safely be done while taking the medication, you can take action (which may include temporary adjustments, moving duties, or, in some cases, disciplinary steps).

3. Drug testing: what a positive result does (and doesn’t) prove

Drug testing is often where issues surface first. Most drug tests look for THC metabolites. That can create false confidence (or unfairness) because a positive test does not necessarily mean someone is impaired at the time of work.

• Tests usually cannot tell the difference between illegal cannabis and prescribed medicinal cannabis.
• THC can remain detectable for days (and sometimes longer), even when any effects have passed.
• A ‘positive’ should be treated as a trigger for investigation and risk assessment, not automatic misconduct.

Practical approach: if a test is positive, pause before deciding what happens next. For example:

1. Ask for evidence of a valid prescription (if the employee says the result is linked to prescribed use).
2. Consider the role and the risks (especially if it is safety‑critical).
3. Consider occupational health input and any medical evidence.
4. Carry out a health and safety risk assessment where appropriate and record the reasons for any decision.

4. Case law: what Tribunals focus on

There are now several Tribunal decisions involving cannabis and workplace drug testing. Many are from Great Britain, so they are not binding in Northern Ireland. However, they are a useful guide to how Tribunals approach fairness, evidence and adjustments.

• C Kimber v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board (Employment Tribunal, 2024): the Claimant succeeded in claims including unfair dismissal and disability‑related discrimination. It underlines the importance of investigating properly and considering medical evidence and adjustments, rather than relying on a positive test alone.
• Renewi UK Services Ltd v Pamment (EAT, 2021): this case demonstrates the risks of taking a “positive test = dismissal” approach. Tribunals will look for a fair investigation, consideration of the employee’s explanation (including health‑related reasons) and a reasonable and consistent application of the employer’s policy.
• Kuehne + Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove (EAT, 2014): the EAT emphasised the need to keep two questions separate: the employer’s reason for dismissal, and whether dismissal for that reason was fair. It also highlights how closely a Tribunal will examine the decision‑making process in drug‑testing cases.

Overall, the message is consistent: document your reasoning, take appropriate medical advice where medication is involved, and avoid blanket assumptions based solely on a positive result.

5. Disclosure and confidentiality

Employees do not usually need to share detailed medical information. However, if medication could affect safety, driving, machinery use or fitness for work, it is reasonable to require disclosure to a named HR or occupational health contact so you can assess risk and consider adjustments. Information about prescriptions and health conditions must be handled confidentially.

6. Disability and reasonable adjustments

If the employee says that the medication has been prescribed due to an underlying condition amount to a disability, the employer will need to make reasonable adjustments. The focus should be on whether the person can do the role safely and effectively, and what changes could help.

• temporary changes to duties (especially where work is safety-critical)
• alternative tasks or redeployment
• changes to shift patterns or start times
• homeworking where the role allows

Reasonable adjustments do not mean allowing someone to work while impaired or taking risks you cannot justify. Where safety is genuinely at stake, it may be reasonable to restrict certain duties or require medical advice before the employee returns to them.

7. Your policies: what to check and update

If your drug and alcohol policy was written mainly with illegal drug use in mind, it may not deal well with the issue of prescribed cannabis. We would advise to review your rules on medicines and fitness for work, and make clear what you expect in safety‑critical roles.

Where it is justified by risk, you can require employees in safety‑critical roles to disclose prescribed medication that could affect performance. If an employee fails to disclose and a “for cause” test later raises concerns, that may become a disciplinary issue. Take advice on the facts before acting.

Good policies focus on fitness for work and risk. They should encourage early, confidential disclosure of prescribed medication where safety could be affected, explain how testing will be handled, and make clear that being impaired at work is not acceptable (whatever the cause).

8. Handling a disclosure (or a positive test): a simple process

1. Keep it confidential. Limit information to those who need to know.
2. Confirm the facts. If prescribed use is claimed, ask for evidence of a valid prescription and basic information on the product and timing.
3. Assess the role and risks. Identify any safety‑critical tasks (for example, driving, machinery or lone working) and conduct a risk assessment.
4. Get medical input where needed. Occupational Health can advise on fitness for work and likely impact.
5. Put interim controls in place. This may include temporary changes to duties, hours, supervision or restrictions on safety‑critical tasks.
6. Review and record. Set review points and document decisions and reasons.

9. What employers should avoid

• Treating a positive test as automatic misconduct without looking at prescription and context
• Assuming a private prescription is “not genuine” or a loophole
• Blanket bans that take no account of disability and individual circumstances
• Sharing information about an employee’s medication more widely than necessary

10. Quick checklist

• Do we know which roles are safety-critical and what the specific risks are?
• Do our policies cover prescribed medication and fitness for work (not just illegal drug use)?
• Do managers know what to do if they suspect impairment?
• Does our testing process allow for confirmation, employee explanations and medical input?
• Do we have a clear, confidential route for employees to disclose prescriptions?
• Are decisions recorded with reasons (especially where duties are restricted)?

The safest approach is consistent: focus on fitness for work, assess risk based on the role, take medical advice where needed, and avoid snap decisions based on labels or assumptions.

On 15 April 2026, the Home Office published a consultation and draft updated Code of Practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working. The draft Code does not change the law immediately however it sets out how employers will be expected to comply with their obligations in future.

Whilst there are currently a growing number of employment‑related consultations taking place in Great Britain that do not extend to Northern Ireland, the obligation to carry out right to work checks is a UK‑wide requirement, and employers in Northern Ireland should be aware of a new Home Office consultation that will apply here if approved.

If approved, the draft Code will apply on or after 1 October 2026 to:

• all new employment checks
• any repeat right to work checks on existing workers where those checks are carried out on or after that date to retain a statutory excuse.

Until then, employers must continue to comply with the current Right to Work Code of Practice, which has been in force since February 2024.This draft Code reinforces the need for right to work checks to be carried out:

• At the same stage of recruitment or engagement for all applicants or workers
• In a consistent manner, regardless of whether checks are done manually, online, or through an external service provider

Employers using different checking methods must ensure that these do not result in different treatment for different groups of workers.

One of the most significant changes in the draft Code is the introduction of formal definitions of “employer” and “worker”. These definitions are intended to cover:

• Employees
• Workers
• Individual sub‑contractors
• Individuals engaged via online matching services and platforms

This reflects the direction of travel under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which, once commenced, will extend the illegal working regime to organisations engaging people in the gig economy or on zero‑hours arrangements.

Employers who rely on contractors, agency staff, or platform‑based working arrangements should therefore pay particular attention.

Penalties for non-compliance with the prevention of illegal working rules includes fines of up to £45,000 for a first offence, and up to £60,000 per illegal worker for repeat breaches. Failure to conduct checks properly can also impact on any Sponsor Licence. It will therefore be important for businesses to understand their obligations

The consultation is open for a short two‑week period and closes on 29 April 2026.

Employers Federation May June 2026 Public Training Events 1

Employers Federation Northern Ireland is celebrating 160 years of supporting employers across Northern Ireland, building on a long tradition of advice, representation and practical help for businesses and organisations.

The Federation was originally formed in May 1866 as the Belfast Engineers, Shipbuilders, Founders and Machine Makers’ Association. It was established by some of Belfast’s leading industrial employers at the time, including Harland and Wolff, to share information, provide mutual support and respond to employment relations challenges.

The milestone year also comes at a time of change for the Federation. It comes following the unexpected death of Peter Bloch, who led the organisation with commitment, integrity and deep care for members and staff for 35 years. Under Peter’s leadership, Employer Federation strengthened its legal support for employers—helping companies and organisations of all sizes, across every sector, to deal with complex and often sensitive workplace issues.

The Federation has now appointed its new Managing Director as Michelle McGinley. Michelle was previously Director of Legal & Policy and stepped into the role of Acting Managing Director following Peter’s death. She provided steady, thoughtful and highly effective leadership, ensuring continuity of service to members while supporting colleagues through significant change.  Michelle took up the role permanently in April 2026 and is the first female to hold the position in the Federation’s 160‑year history. She will work closely with Federation’s experienced team to build on the organisation’s values and continue delivering practical, trusted support for members.

Employers Federation will mark the 160^th anniversary throughout the year as we look forward to the future.

In discrimination claims, where a claim is successful, the Tribunal will assess compensation for the hurt, upset and humiliation caused by the discriminatory act(s).

These awards are known as Injury to Feelings awards, often referred to as Vento bands, following the case in which clear guidelines for assessing such compensation were established.

The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales and Scotland have now published their annual increases to Injury to Feelings awards in the 9th Addendum to the Presidential Guidance.

Although this Guidance does not formally apply in Northern Ireland, the updated bands are generally followed by the Industrial Tribunal and Fair Employment Tribunal.

NEW INJURY TO FEELINGS AWARD BANDS

Lower band

• £1,300 to £12,600

(previously £1,200 to £12,100)

Applies to less serious cases of discrimination.

Middle band

• £12,600 to £37,700

(previously £12,100 to £36,400)

Applies to cases that do not merit an upper band award.

Upper band

• £37,700 to £62,900

(previously £36,400 to £60,700)

Applies to the most serious cases of discrimination.

Exceptional cases

• Over £62,900

(previously over £60,700)

Reserved for the most exceptional circumstances.

When do the new bands apply?

The updated Injury to Feelings award bands apply to Tribunal claims presented on or after 6 April 2026.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No.3 and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026 update both the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) rules in Great Britain (GB) and Northern Ireland (N.I.)

What is changing?

The Regulations amend the bringing into effect of two major changes:

• Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regulations 1982 (GB)
• Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regulations (N.I.) 1982

1. Removal of Waiting Days

Employees will now be entitled to SSP from Day One of sickness absence, rather than Day Four.

2. 2. Removal of Lower Earnings Limit

Employees will no longer need to earn above the Lower Earnings Limit to qualify for SSP. This means all employees, including lower‑paid and part‑time workers, will be eligible.

For lower earners, SSP will be paid at 80% of normal weekly earnings or the standard SSP rate, whichever is lower.

COMMENCEMENT DATE

These changes take effect on 6 April 2026 and apply in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland from this date.

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

The Government has published Guidance: Sickness absences that start before and end on or after 6 April 2026 and more technical guidance that can be accessed here SSP-Transitional-Protections-Guidance-published (003)

The transitional arrangements will apply where sickness absence began before 6 April 2026 and continues on or after that date.

• If an employee is serving waiting days under the old rules when 6 April 2026 arrives:
• Waiting days before 6 April 2026 remain unpaid.
• From 6 April 2026 onwards, waiting days no longer apply.
• SSP becomes payable from 6 April 2026, even if the absence began earlier.

There is no back‑payment for waiting days that fell before 6 April 2026.

2. Employees previously excluded due to low earnings (below the Lower Earnings Limit)

If an employee started their sickness absence before 6 April 2026 and was not entitled to SSP under the old rules, because they earned below the Lower Earnings Limit:

They may become entitled to SSP from 6 April 2026, provided:

• The sickness absence started on or after 22 September 2025, or
• The absence started earlier, but the employee returned to work at some point between 22 September 2025 and 5 April 2026 (so the absence is not continuous).

In these cases:

• SSP is payable from 6 April 2026.
• SSP is payable for up to 28 weeks, calculated using average weekly earnings before the sickness absence.

3. 3. Long‑running continuous absences that began before 22 September 2025

An employee will not become entitled to SSP from 6 April 2026 if:

• Their sickness absence started on or before 21 September 2025, and
• The absence continued without any break up to 5 April 2026, and
• The absence (or a linked absence) continues on or after 6 April 2026.

In these circumstances:

• The employee must return to work for at least 8 weeks before a new SSP entitlement can arise.

4. 4. Employees already receiving SSP before 6 April 2026

Where an employee is already entitled to SSP before 6 April 2026, and the new rules would otherwise result in a lower rate of SSP (for example, due to the move to 80% of earnings):

• The transitional protection applies.
• SSP will continue to be paid at the uprated flat rate for the remainder of that continuous period of sickness, until:
• the employee returns to work,
• the 28‑week SSP limit is reached, or
• SSP entitlement otherwise ends.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR EMPLOYERS

There will be no retrospective payment for waiting days that fell before 6 April 2026. Some employees who were previously excluded from Statutory Sick Pay may become entitled part‑way through an ongoing sickness absence once the new rules take effect. However, long‑running continuous absences that began before 22 September 2025 will remain excluded until the employee returns to work. Employers should therefore check entitlement carefully before paying SSP in transitional cases.