UK employment law round-up: November 2024

National Insurance contributions  

The law that will trigger the change in National Insurance rates has been laid in parliament. The National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill increases the rate the employer pays on employee earnings, and reduces the threshold on which they are paid. If the bill is passed, an example of this change is provided below:  

_{*Any relief from the Employment Allowance would also need to be applied to these figures} 

The bill also introduces a wider pool of employers eligible for tax relief on NICs. The relief is the Employment Allowance which, from April 2025, will be up to a value of £10,500, which can be claimed by all eligible companies and charities (previously it had only been able to be claimed by organisations with an employer liability of less than £100,000 in the previous tax year). As the NICs rates rise will coincide with the increase in the National Minimum Wage, it is important to add this to any forecasts of costs to your organisation. Employers may also want to account for potential changes in the rate of inflation due to increased input costs. 

HR professionals can provide support to employers and employees by exploring the advantages and disadvantages of potential counter measures. If not already in place, one option might be to review the feasibility of introducing salary sacrifice to help offset the extra employment costs (for example NICs are not chargeable on pensions contributions). But it is important to consider also how such arrangements will impact employees’ take-home pay and eligibility to state benefits, such as maternity pay.   

Please note that members can monitor the progress of the NICs bill and associated Make Work Pay plan proposals in the tracker.

Christmas parties and new preventative duty

The preventative duty to take reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment extends to places of work events – aka the Christmas party. 

This will be the first year that such an anticipatory duty is in place for the festive period. The duty to is to take positive and proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment. In the event that sexual harassment has occurred previously, that also means showing that clear steps have been taken to prevent this again.  

Breach of the duty, and associated EHRC Code, is not a standalone claim, however a breach would be considered in any related claim at tribunal.  

The law change means that HR professionals should consider the risks of sexual harassment occurring in their business on an ongoing basis. However, they should also plan ahead where particular events could pose an additional risk, such as for the Christmas party, where alcohol is likely to be available. A risk assessment could include: 

• considering previous feedback from staff, 
• asking managers to identify any underlying tensions in their teams, 
• foreseeing party scenarios that could lead to inappropriate comments or actions 
• addressing the risk of third-party harassment. 

One practical preventative step could be to not offer a free bar all evening. As well as helping to prevent inappropriate behaviour, this is a more inclusive approach as not all employees can or want to drink alcohol. Organisations should consider reminding managers and colleagues of expected standards of behaviour at work events. It could also be worthwhile holding new/refresher training on the duty and to highlight your organisation's process for reporting concerns. 

Neonatal Care (and Leave and Pay) Act 

Raised under the previous government, the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 is being progressed.  

The act is expected to provide parents with a right to up to 12 weeks' leave and pay when their baby requires neonatal care in addition to existing parental leave entitlements.  

People professionals should note that the right to neonatal care leave is a statutory day one right. However, the right to statutory neonatal care pay will require 26 weeks of continuous service and earnings on average of £123 a week (£125 a week from 6 April 2025). 

Many of the provisions of the bill are still being drafted. Early indications state that the statutory right will apply when the child is placed in neonatal care for a week or more, in the first 28 days and up to the first 68 weeks of the child’s life.  

Issues such as what happens when weeks of neonatal care are separated, the type of care that falls under the act, and the terms when more than one child is in neonatal care, are still to be addressed.  

We will update the employment law timetable when we recieve further detail on the commencement of these regulations.  

Second jobs and ‘side hustles’ 

Following October’s case of Mrs K Hibbert v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (2024) the question of primary and secondary employers' obligations in the instance that an employee is working more than one job (self-employed or otherwise) has been, once again, highlighted. We delve into this area in a specific section of our Working Time legal resource.  

Among the points in the resource, the primary matters to consider are the employment status of the secondary role, whether the employee has opted into the Working Time Regulations maximum 48 hour working week, the common law duty of care and the implied duty of trust and confidence.  

Case law precedents in worker status and holiday pay cases 

People professionals may wish to consider the following tribunal cases that have returned in November:  

When the case of Bandi and others v Bolt (2024) returned, the drivers were deemed to have worker status based on the level of control the business had over the work. To determine the ruling, the tests from two previous cases were applied: 

• Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher (2011) the test of considering the relative bargaining power of the parties  
• Uber BV v Aslam (2019) the test of control, such as the business determining pay, terms of contract (and which party controls them), the level of control on the work 

Notably, in November we also so the return of Deksne v Ambitions Ltd (2024) where the respondent agreed that the claim of unlawful deduction of wages was valid after the EAT indicated that the precedent of PSNI v Agnew (2024) shows that a gap of more than three months in deductions is permissible in the instance that the deductions could still be shown to be part of a series.