UK employment law round-up: What you need to know at the start of 2026

Employment Rights Act 2025 

As we start 2026 it would be futile not to acknowledge the gravity of the Employment Rights Act 2025 for the people profession. 

The CIPD are supporting members extensively with these changes. Members can consult the following resources: 

• Context around the imminent and significant changes.
• The tracker – to provide information on the ERA’s legal proposals and the status of these proposals. 

In addition to imminent measures, January 2026 is a key month for people professionals to audit and prepare for the significant changes coming in from April 2026. Further ahead, the reduced unfair dismissal protection qualifying period of six months (down from two years) will apply from the date it is expected to come into force which is 1 January 2027. This means employees with six months or more service on that implementation date will gain the right to claim unfair dismissal from that date, and amended policies and practices would need to be in place from July 2026. 

Paternity leave changes  

With the first regulations of the Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 coming into force from the 29 December 2025 - a change in workplace rights for fathers and partners has come into effect. 

In the sad situation where a child’s mother, or a person with whom the child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption, dies in childbirth or within 12 months of the child’s birth (or placement for adoption) the bereaved father, or the partner of the deceased has statutory rights to paternity leave that would not otherwise be available under the existing paternity leave regime. This includes those in same-sex relationships or civil partnerships and cases arising from surrogacy arrangements.  

Therefore from 29 December 2025 onwards, people professionals must apply an alternative eligibility calculation for paternity leave in these circumstances. Specifically: 

• The usual 26-week minimum service requirement for eligibility for statutory paternity leave does not apply in bereavement cases covered by the Act. Bereaved partners have a right to paternity leave from day one of employment.  
• A bereaved parent who has taken Shared Parental Leave may still take paternity leave, notwithstanding the usual restriction that normally prevents paternity leave after shared parental leave.  

As we move into 2026, further regulations under the Act are expected to enable paternity leave to be taken, even in situations where caring for the child or supporting the mother is no longer possible. For example this includes cases where both the mother and the child have died, or in adoption cases where the adopter dies and the child dies or is returned. The provisions also allow a bereaved employees to undertake some work for their employer during paternity leave (e.g. through KIT days) without ending their leave entitlement and enhance redundancy protections for employees returning to work after bereaved partner paternity leave.  

It is also expected that regulations will expand the period of available leave in these bereavement circumstances beyond the current statutory maximum of two weeks (applicable under ordinary paternity leave rules) to up to 52 weeks, although the precise timing and terms of these changes remain uncertain. 

Landmark Birmingham Council equal pay settlement

The final settlement of the landmark Birmingham City Council equal pay case brings multifaceted implications for the people profession. 

At the heart of the implications is the impact on the claimants, many of whom have spoken of emotional distress and financial hardship due to the long-running case and pay inequalities. In addition, the case sends a clear signal to employers that equal pay rights cannot be sidelined and emphasises the importance of ongoing pay audits, robust job evaluation schemes and monitoring pay structures to mitigate equal pay risk, particularly for larger employers. The council had already paid out earlier equal pay settlements reported to exceed £1 billion and the further liabilities are estimated at around £760 million, leading the council to declare a financial emergency and issue an effective bankruptcy notice. This context alone highlights the significant organisational, financial and reputational risks associated with pay inequality. 

In addition to the scale of the costs, the case also underscores the importance of collective bargaining. The settlements were negotiated between the council and the trade unions UNISON and GMB, demonstrating how constructive industrial relations can play a critical role in resolving complex and deeply embedded employment issues. With upcoming changes to union rights under the Employment Rights Act 2025, this is particularly relevant. Members should note that the CIPD has recently developed a tool to help assess compliance with industrial relations rules and to also plan strategically for effective union engagement. 

Non-compete clauses 

If the government’s publication of the working paper on non-compete clauses has passed you by at this busy time, there are some aspects worth noting. 

From a business perspective, non-compete clauses may offer an opportunity to protect sensitive commercial information and prevent it from being compromised. They can also enable organisations to fully train employees without fear that valuable insights will simply be taken elsewhere. 

However, the government argues that despite many non-compete clauses being largely unenforceable, they may still have a psychological effect in restricting employee mobility and therefore potentially hindering economic growth. 

Against this backdrop, the working paper acts as a means of gathering employer feedback on the proposed options for reform. The paper suggests options (one or more of the following) such as: 

• A statutory limit on the length of non-compete clauses.
• A statutory limit of on the length of non-compete clauses according to company size.
• A ban on non-compete clauses.
• Banning non-compete clauses below a salary threshold.
• Combining a ban below a salary threshold and a statutory limit of 3 months. 

Businesses have until 18 February 2026 to provide feedback if you think a decision in this arena may impact your business.  

Impact of ADHD on formal meetings 

Mr R Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd (2023) is a case worth considering for HR practitioners. In this case, the claimant, Mr Toghill, succeeded in multiple claims. 

In particular, it is worth considering the tribunal’s approach to an employer’s accountability for considerations of disability.

In the case, the tribunal found that the employer's assessment of the claimant's conduct during the dismissal process failed to take account of the claimant’s inability to focus linked to his disability. The tribunal notes "In particular, the effect on his issues with engaging in meaningful conversations and an ability to retain information. We find that the claimant’s ADHD did put him at a substantial disadvantage during the disciplinary procedure specifically the disciplinary hearing and applied sanction of dismissal but not the investigation or appeal stage.” 

The CIPD offer a guide to supporting neuroinclusion at work.