In this edition of The Loch Lens, we share key updates and practical guidance designed to help employers and business leaders navigate the challenges of today’s workplace, including:

From legal insight to help you grow and protect your interests, and expert perspectives on people strategy and leadership, to advice that supports smart strategic decisions, our newsletter delivers the knowledge you need to stay ahead of the curve. Don’t miss out, subscribe to our monthly LinkedIn newsletter for monthly updates straight to your inbox.

On 15 September 2025, the House of Commons overturned amendments made by the House of Lords to the Employment Rights Bill (ERB), restoring the government’s original framework with two limited changes. The move reduces uncertainty for employers after weeks of debate over the scope of the reforms.

The Commons rejected Lords’ proposals for a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, a right to request guaranteed hours, and a softening of rules on “fire and rehire”. However, two additions were made: the ban on certain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) has been extended to cover complaints about reasonable adjustments, and the government will review time-off rules for public duties such as school governance and magistrate service.

The decision clarifies the direction of travel, confirming that the ERB’s central provisions remain intact. Employers will need to pay particular attention to NDA wording and settlement practices, as well as ensuring that reasonable-adjustment processes are robust and accessible.

Organisations are also advised to audit policies on time off for public duties in anticipation of further guidance, and to recalibrate change management programmes in line with the original “fire and rehire” provisions now reinstated.

Learn more about updates to the ERB here and download our guide to the ERB here.

The Home Office has withdrawn 1,948 sponsor licences between July 2024 and June 2025, more than double the 937 revocations in the previous year and the highest number on record. The increase signals a stricter enforcement approach and heightened scrutiny of employer compliance.

Key reasons for revocation included helping individuals circumvent UK immigration rules, underpaying or exploiting sponsored workers, and failing to provide the roles or conditions promised at the time of sponsorship. Enhanced data-sharing between government departments and law enforcement has enabled faster identification and action against non-compliant sponsors.

Sectors most affected include adult social care, hospitality, retail, and construction, all of which rely heavily on overseas labour. Further reforms are expected following the May 2025 White Paper: ‘Restoring Control Over the Immigration System’, which proposes tougher compliance checks, sector-specific audits, and enhanced digital monitoring of sponsored workers.

Together, these developments signal an increasingly stringent sponsorship regime, one in which enforcement activity is likely to remain a central feature of the UK’s immigration landscape.

More on the revoking of sponsor licenses can be found here. For more about the changes following the White Paper click here, and for migration data see here.

An engineering storeman has been awarded more than £16,000 after being unfairly dismissed for greeting a colleague with “top of the morning to ya” in a mock Irish accent. Karl Davies made the remark while listening to Irish music at Oscar Mayer’s ready-meal factory in Wrexham in August 2024. His manager, Scott Millward, who was accompanying a red-haired external auditor at the time, reported the incident as potential racial harassment, prompting an internal investigation and Mr Davies’s subsequent dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal heard that Mr Davies repeated the phrase several times, with Judge Vincent Ryan accepting he was “effectively channelling the musical vibe”. While describing the behaviour as “reprehensible” and “mocking”, the judge found no evidence that it was racially motivated or had the effect of harassment. He concluded that the purpose was to irritate or embarrass Mr Millward rather than to offend on racial grounds.

However, the Tribunal criticised the fairness of Oscar Mayer’s disciplinary process. The judge noted that the investigator chosen had an unresolved grievance with Mr Davies, witness statements were inconsistent, and the probe was “largely based on assumptions”. The company’s decision to treat the incident as racial harassment failed to take account of Mr Davies’s 27 years of unblemished service and clean disciplinary record.

Judge Ryan ruled that while the greeting was inappropriate, dismissal was an unreasonable response. “The claimant was accused of using an employment-ending, reputation-damaging, racially motivated slur,” he said. “On the facts of this case, the dismissal was unfair, which does not mean that I approve of the use of the greeting or mock accents.”

Find more on the claim here.

A former Durham Police detective has been found guilty of gross misconduct after repeatedly pretending to work from home. Detective Constable Niall Thubron used “key jamming”, holding down a keyboard key to simulate activity, on 38 occasions across 12 days between December 2024 and January 2025. Evidence showed that of 85 hours logged in, 45 were spent feigning work.

The misconduct panel concluded that Thubron’s behaviour was deliberately dishonest, breaching standards of Honesty and Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities, and Discreditable Conduct. The chair of the hearing, Chief Constable Bacon, described it as “clear gross misconduct” that would have led to dismissal without notice had Thubron not already resigned in May 2025.

The ruling noted the significant harm caused, both to public trust and to colleagues who described feeling “let down and embarrassed” by his deception. It stressed that policing relies on confidence in officers’ integrity and warned that such behaviour undermines team morale and public confidence.

Thubron will now be added to the police barred list, preventing future employment in the service. The case follows a similar incident earlier in 2025 involving another detective, underscoring growing employer concerns over misuse of remote working arrangements.

Read more on the case here.

In Vassallo v Mizuho International & Mizuho Bank [2025] EAT 131, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) issued a rare costs order against a claimant after her appeal was found to be misconceived and pursued unreasonably. While costs awards in the EAT remain unusual, the case highlights the consequences of failing to comply with procedural requirements, even for litigants in person.

The respondents sought costs under Rule 34A of the EAT Rules 1993, citing two main issues: the appeal itself was misconceived, and the claimant acted unreasonably by obstructing access to key documents. Her conduct also breached procedural expectations under the EAT Practice Direction 2023, including unclear grounds of appeal, an overly broad skeleton argument, and submission of incomplete and unpaginated bundles.

Although over £10,000 in costs was initially sought, the EAT awarded £1,000, recognising the claimant’s severe financial hardship. The award was divided as £750 for the misconceived ground of appeal and £250 for wider procedural failings, reflecting her reliance on Universal Credit and lack of assets, in line with Rule 34B(2). No “wasted costs” order was made against her representative.

The case serves as a reminder that while EAT costs orders are rare, unreasonably pursued appeals and procedural failings can result in financial penalties. Tribunals will, however, take into account the claimant’s ability to pay when determining the amount of any award.

Read the full judgement in the case here.

In GL v AB SpA (C-38/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that indirect disability discrimination can extend to employees who care for someone with a disability, even if they are not disabled themselves. The case involved an Italian station operator whose requests for a fixed working schedule to care for her severely disabled son were repeatedly denied, despite some temporary accommodations being provided.

The CJEU held that the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC), alongside the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, protects employees disadvantaged because of a dependent’s disability. The duty to provide reasonable accommodation under Article 5 of the Directive can therefore apply to employees seeking adjustments to support a disabled relative.

The judgment reinforces protections for carers across the EU and may influence domestic discrimination law. While the UK Equality Act 2010 recognises direct associative discrimination, it does not explicitly extend this protection to indirect discrimination, highlighting a potential gap in domestic law.

For employers, the ruling underscores the need to carefully assess policies and accommodation requests linked to caregiving. Indirect practices or workplace rules that disproportionately disadvantage employees supporting disabled dependents may now face increased legal scrutiny.

The Government has confirmed an 18-month review of the UK’s parental leave and pay framework, following criticism from the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) that current entitlements are outdated and among the weakest in the developed world. The review, announced in response to the WEC’s June report, will explore how the system can better support modern working families while balancing the needs of business and the Exchequer.

The Committee described the review as a “watershed moment” but warned that limited reform would fail working parents. Current rules provide only two weeks’ statutory paternity leave, which the WEC said reinforces “outdated gender stereotypes about caring” and deters shared parenting. Experts including employment lawyers and HR bodies have urged ministers to deliver meaningful change, arguing that the existing system is “not fit for purpose” and risks falling further behind international standards.

Employment specialists have called for stronger rights and improved pay. The CIPD has proposed six weeks’ paternity leave at or near full pay to encourage take-up and support equality at home and at work. Others note that many employers are already enhancing their own leave policies and normalising parental leave for all genders as part of talent retention strategies.

The review is due to conclude in 2026, with findings expected to inform long-term reform. Employers are advised to monitor developments closely, prepare for April 2026 “day-one” rights, and benchmark their parental leave provisions to remain competitive in attracting and supporting working parents.

Discover more of the details of the government review here.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a Tribunal’s decision that a nurse working through a personal service company (PSC) was both an employee and a worker of the end user. In Partnership of East London Co-operatives Ltd v Maclean, the EAT found that while the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the contract was between the claimant personally and PELC Ltd, its reasoning on mutuality of obligation and personal service was flawed.

Ms Maclean worked as a clinical streamer at urgent treatment centres operated by PELC Ltd from 2018 to 2023. Although she invoiced through her PSC, the Tribunal found that she was personally contracted to perform the work and was integrated into PELC’s organisation, concluding that her relationship was one of employment. PELC appealed, arguing that she was a self-employed contractor who worked only when shifts were offered and accepted.

The EAT agreed that the written documentation showed no ongoing obligation on either party, PELC was not required to offer shifts, nor was Ms Maclean obliged to accept them. It found that the Tribunal’s conclusion of continuous mutuality of obligation was unsupported, particularly as shift allocation was irregular and based on a bidding system. The EAT also held that the Tribunal had not adequately explained why a contractual right of substitution was “impracticable”.

The decision reinforces the importance of carefully analysing personal service and mutuality of obligation in contractor arrangements, especially where work is organised on an ad hoc or flexible basis. It highlights that even if a PSC is disregarded, employment status will not automatically follow without clear and consistent evidence of an employment relationship in practice.

More on the EAT decision can be found here.

A statement graphic

As an extension of your team, Loch connects the dots between leadership, compliance, people strategy, and business growth when partnering with ambitious organisation leaders and individuals to solve complex challenges.

Our integrated approach provides commercially focused, pragmatic solutions that help you when you’re faced with a decision that will protect, grow, or future-proof your future. By covering every angle, we give you the confidence to move forward for long-term success.