King's Speech: Implications for people professionals
The King's Speech – delivered by King Charles III – is written by the UK Government, and adds ‘royal approval’ to the intended legislative agenda for the 12 months ahead.
Given last year's introduction of the wide-ranging employment provisions in the bill that became the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), it is perhaps unsurprising that the King's Speech contained relatively few direct employment measures. Indirect implications for people professionals include:
- The UK Government wants to boost living standards by tackling the cost of living and investing in markets. This intent is coupled with a claim that it will work with employers to drive growth and ensure fair outcomes for workers. It is expected that this largely refers to the existing measures within the ERA 2025.
- The UK Government intends to promote a bill to strengthen trade ties with the EU, in addition to legislation to tackle late payments to small business.
- The UK Government claims it will continually invest in apprenticeship pathways as a means of tackling youth unemployment.
People professionals should use the law timetable to track employment-related measures outside of the ERA 2025, and the tracker to monitor developments under the plan to Make Work Pay, including the ERA 2025.
Fire and rehire restrictions from January 2027
With financial pressures increasing for many organisations, interest is growing in the proposed ‘fire and rehire’ reforms under the ERA2025. From January 2027, employers' ability to use this practice will be significantly restricted, with dismissals likely to be automatically unfair unless strict conditions are met.
CIPD members can access our practical guide on fire and rehire for support to understand the current legal risks of this practice. We will have more information about the future restrictions once the Government has published its response to a recent consultation exercise.
Misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) consultation open
As part of the ERA2025 reforms, the UK Government is consulting on the proposals to ban confidentiality clauses relating to discrimination and harassment in settlement agreements (and in any other contract, including general non-disclosure agreements), unless the employee specifically requests a confidentiality clause.
The consultation covers the practicalities that will need to be addressed for a clause to be permitted, including whether the employee needs to request such a clause in writing, and whether there should be a cooling off period. The provisions won’t prevent confidentiality clauses relating to other information, such as sensitive commercial information.
Members should use the NDAs guide to adhere to current practice. On the new consultation, the CIPD will be respond and the documents can be accessed here.
Four tribunals to note
Employment Tribunal and Employment Tribunal Appeal court decisions provide people professionals with some insight on how employment law is seen in practice. This is important as people professionals are often ‘in the room’ when important business decisions are made – not just as the practitioner but to offer strategic advice. Some recent decisions to consider include:
Employment status
- After going all the way to the Supreme Court, the consideration of whether part-time football referees are ‘employees’ (for tax and national insurance purposes) has potentially reached a conclusion. In Professional Game Match Officials Ltd & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2026] judges have now looked again at the factual position of the referees, considering directions provided by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision. The Supreme Court had decided that some of the elements of employment status (mutuality of obligation, and control) were present, but the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) needed to make a decision about the ‘quality’ of those elements, taking all the facts, and all the other elements of what makes a contract of employment, into account. The Supreme Court have confirmed the correct approach in employment status cases is the Ready Mixed Concrete multifactorial test to assess employment status, with no one factor taking priority. In this particular case, the FTT has now (and again) decided that the part-time referees were not employees but “skilled professionals participating voluntarily in a regulated framework, undertaking discrete engagements for remuneration while retaining substantial autonomy and independence.”
- It remains to be seen if HMRC will appeal against this latest decision. HR professionals should keep up-to-date on matters of employment status, as significant outcomes may be a prompt to review internal contracts. The CIPD provide a law page on employment status to support members in this area. It is also part of the longer term agenda of the current UK Government to look at employment status in more detail.
Disability discrimination
In a recent case Ms D Vale vs The Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary (2024), the Employment Tribunal found that Avon and Somerset Constabulary had failed to make reasonable adjustments because they did not provide noise cancelling headphones for a fixed-term employee who had advised the force of her ADHD at the outset of the contract, and requested the headphones at that point. A manager involved also questioned the legitimacy of the employee’s disability during a later video call. The Tribunal found that this amounted to disability-related harassment. Compensation is likely to be in six figures.
Although Employment Tribunal decisions are not ‘binding’ on other employers, this demonstrates that failing to provide something as simple, and relatively inexpensive, as a set of headphones, and dealing inappropriately with employees who make such requests, can lead to expensive claims and reputational damage. Members can access a dedicated disability discrimination law page to support them in this area of the practice.
Whistleblowing
The substance and detail that an employee needs to provide to be protected by the ‘whistleblowing’ provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was highlighted in Capeling v TFX Group Ltd (2026) EAT, where the EAT agreed with the Employment Tribunal that the ‘disclosure’ the employee argued she had made was not specific enough to qualify for whistleblowing protection.
As people professionals, it is important to ensure your organisation provides support and detailed information about making disclosures, to enable people to speak up where risks exist. Members should use the guide to enable a speak up culture within their organisations (to reduce risk in the first place) and there is support from the whistleblowing helpline for people professionals who are handling whistleblowing claims.
‘Protected conversations’ in settlement negotiations
The recent case of Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd (2026) EAT is a good reminder that ‘protected conversations’ are not a blanket shield which will allow all conversations about a settlement agreement to stay confidential; ‘protected conversations’ or ‘without prejudice discussions’ only stay confidential for certain claims but the content of those conversations can still be used in other claims, particularly around conduct. Information on conduct and dismissal is provided on the relevant law page.
