Contact | Search |

Tag: Yvonne-Gallagher

HOW WILL THE UPCOMING TRADE UNION REFORMS AFFECT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES?

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Employment Rights Act 2025 constitutes a landmark change in employment rights not seen in a generation. Significant changes concerning trade union rights form part of the reforms it will implement, introducing new rights and enhancing others.

The changes range from bolstering protections for individuals who are members or representatives of trade unions, to making it easier for trade unions to access new workforces and become recognised by them, as well as requiring employers to inform workers of their right to join them. Some reforms affect employees only, whilst others will apply to both employees and workers. This article will explore and summarise what these changes will look like in practice for those affected.

For the creative industries, like film, TV and theatre, these reforms are worth taking particular note of. Trade unions like BECTU and Equity play a pivotal role in negotiating working conditions, pay and safety standards for productions, making these updates extremely relevant to both employers and workers alike.

Please be aware that not all trade union related changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 are covered in this article. If you would like more information on such other changes, for example changes to information requirements on industrial action ballots, then please reach out to one of our employment lawyers directly.

THE NEED TO KNOWS

THE RIGHT TO JOIN A TRADE UNION

Employers will soon need to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. They must receive a written statement at the same time they’re provided with a written statement of particulars (i.e. an employment contract), or at other “prescribed times”.

This change could have significant implications for production companies and studios in the creative industries. Many workers in this sector including lighting technicians, camera operators, and post-production staff, are freelancers or on short-term contracts. Employers need to ensure that all qualifying workers, regardless of their employment status, are informed of their right to join unions like BECTU and Equity. Practically, this could look like updating onboarding processes for freelancers and ensuring compliance across large-scale productions with multiple contractors.

Details of what information must be included in the statement are yet to be decided and announced. This may include details of rights that workers have against detriment and dismissal on trade union grounds, as well as other trade union related protections afforded to workers under legislation.

Failure to provide workers with a compliant statement will be addressed in the same way as failure to provide workers with a legally compliant written statement of particulars of employment or engagement. Compensation equal to two to four weeks’ pay (currently capped at £751 per week) will be payable to workers who are able to bring this claim in addition to another substantive claim.

It is currently expected that employers will be required to provide such a statement from October 2026.

RIGHT OF ACCESS

A new right will be introduced for trade unions to physically and digitally access workplaces of employers with 21 or more workers for various purposes (e.g. to meet, support and organise with workers, but not to organise industrial action).

This could result in unions requesting access to film sets, studios or post-production facilities to engage with workers. Production companies and broadcasters hiring large teams for TV shows or feature films will need to factor in union access when planning schedules and operations to avoid disruptions.

A Code of Practice has been published to provide employers with practical guidance on how this right to access will operate in practice. This is a draft code that may be changed following a consultation process that closed on 20 May 2026.

A new statutory framework through which trade unions can negotiate physical and digital access to an employer’s workplace will be implemented. Through this framework:

  • A union submits a request for access to an employer. If the employer agrees to the access terms, then the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) should be notified and they will record the agreement.
  • If the employer rejects the request, then negotiations between the employer and union begin.
  • If those negotiations fail, a party can apply for the CAC to determine whether the union should be granted access. If it rules that it should, then it can impose access terms themselves.

If an access agreement has been breached, a party can complain to the CAC. The CAC can vary the agreement, declare the complaint well-founded (or not), and issue orders for certain steps to be taken to ensure compliance. For subsequent, upheld complaints for repeated breaches of the agreement or breaches of a CAC order, the CAC can issue a penalty. Legislation governing how much of a penalty can be imposed will be introduced; it is intended that a fine up to £75,000 can be imposed at first, increasing to a maximum of £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for a third or subsequent penalty.

It is expected these reforms will be implemented in October 2026.

EXTENSION OF PROTECTION FROM BLACKLISTING

Currently, employers are banned from ‘blacklisting’ trade union members for employment purposes, namely to deny employment, to dismiss them, or to cause detriment to them because of their trade union membership or activities.

The government will extend the prohibition on blacklisting. They will introduce regulations to protect a wider range of people from blacklisting due to trade union membership or activity.

Blacklisting has been a historical concern in the creative industries, especially for freelancers who often rely on positive reputations to secure future work. Crew members or performers involved in union activities may fear being excluded from projects, but these new protections, including against AI-generated or digital blacklists aim to prevent such practices in an industry that is becoming increasingly reliant on automated hiring platforms.

These reforms are intended to strengthen prohibitions against third parties who are not employers or employment agencies from compiling and selling or supplying blacklists, as well as to prohibit such lists being used for discrimination in recruitment or treatment of workers even where the lists have not been compiled for those purposes (for example if AI has created a list of workers which is subsequently sold or supplied or used for the purpose of discriminating against those workers based on their trade union membership or activity).

A consultation on these reforms will take place this year and the reforms are anticipated to take effect in 2027.

TIME OFF AND FACILITIES FOR TRADE UNION OFFICIALS, LEARNING REPRESENTATIVES AND EQUALITY REPRESENTATIVES

Trade union officials are entitled to paid time off during working hours in connection with certain duties and activities or to undergo training in respect of those activities. Recognised learning representatives of trade unions who undertake certain activities are similarly entitled to paid time off to carry out those activities under certain circumstances.

Employers are currently obligated to provide such time off only if it is reasonable in all the circumstances. This will change so that:

  • the amount of paid time off employees want to take to carry out such duties will be automatically presumed to be reasonable; and
  • employers will be required to show that the time off requested is not reasonable. 

If an employee is an equality representative of a trade union recognised by the employer, employers will also now be required to allow them to reasonable time off to conduct certain activities, for example arranging learning or training on matters concerning equality in the workplace. This right will only apply where:

  • equality representatives have undergone sufficient training to carry out these activities (and their trade union has given the employer written notice of this fact); or
  • the trade union has, within the last six months, given the employer written notice that the equality representatives will be undergoing such training. Only one such notice can be given to any one employee, and the relevant training will need to be completed within six months, and the trade union will need to notify the employer that they have completed this training within six months of that notice being provided to them.

Employers will also now have to provide trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives with access to facilities that enable them to carry out their duties or training, if reasonable in all circumstances, and if they request them. This may, for example, include providing an office or meeting space.

These changes are anticipated to come into effect in October 2026, and a Code of Practice offering practical guidance on how to abide by these new measures will be provided by ACAS.

DISMISSAL FOR PROTECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTION

This protection only applies to employees who take part in “protected industrial action”. This broadly means industrial action lawfully authorised and endorsed by a trade union that complies with certain requirements, such that it provides the union with certain legal protections.

Previously, employers could not dismiss employees if the main or sole reason for dismissal is that they took part in protected, official industrial action for a period of 12 weeks or less, or during a longer period where employers have not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute subject to the protected industrial action. Any such dismissal is automatically unfair.

This could become a key consideration for film and TV productions during union-led strikes or industrial action. Prolonged disputes could lead to significant delays in filming schedules as employers will no longer be able to dismiss employees participating in protected action, even after 12 weeks.

For any protected industrial action taking place on or after 18 February 2026, employers cannot dismiss any employees by reason of their participation in such action irrespective of how long the action takes place.

DETRIMENT FOR TAKING PART IN TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES

Currently, workers have no protection against detriment (i.e. any action short of dismissal) for taking part in protected industrial action.

The Employment Rights Act addresses this by giving workers the right not to be subjected to detriments “of a prescribed description” for taking part in protected industrial action or to deter them from taking such action. Any workers subjected to such a detriment may be awarded compensation and that compensation may be increased if relevant ACAS Codes of practice are not followed by an employer. Following a government consultation which closed on 23 April 2026, the government confirmed that it intends to prohibit all types of detriment. However, workers participating in protected industrial action can still lose their pay during periods when they are not working.

Draft regulations have been published which, if passed, will provide this protection to workers with effect from 30 October 2026.

REFORMS TO STATUTORY UNION RECOGNITION PROCEDURE

If employers do not voluntarily agree to recognise a union, a union has the option to apply to the CAC to impose recognition on an employer’s workforce. Since 6 April 2026, that application process has become much easier.

Under the old process:

  • The applying union had to demonstrate that at least 10%  of the group of workers that the union proposes to negotiate and collectively bargain on behalf of (known as the “Bargaining Unit”) were members of that union.
  • Prior to ordering a ballot for recognising a union, a union had to show it was likely to secure majority support for recognition amongst workers in the Bargaining Unit and demonstrate detailed evidence for this support.
  • If the CAC ordered a recognition ballot for a union to be recognised, in order to succeed, the ballot outcome would require:
  • a majority in favour amongst those voting in the ballot; and
  • the proportion of those voting in favour in the ballot to constitute at least 40% of workers within the Bargaining Unit as a whole.

A number of changes have simplified this process, including:

  • changing the test for demonstrating minimum union representation of the proposed Bargaining Unit, which could mean anywhere between 2% to 10% union membership of the Bargaining Unit will suffice;
  • removing the requirement for unions to show likely majority support for recognition; and
  • requiring only a simple majority of those actually voting in a ballot for a union to be recognised, removing the requirement for at least 40% of the Bargaining Unit to vote in favour.

In addition to simplifying the process, additional regulations relating to the process will be introduced, including:

  • requiring employers to provide the CAC with certain information about workers in a Bargaining Unit within five working days of being notified of receipt of the trade union’s application for recognition (expected to come into force in 2027);
  • changes to the negotiation period for unions accessing workers in a proposed Bargaining Unit; and
  • strengthening protection against unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots. This will include prohibiting employers from increasing the number of workers in a proposed Bargaining Unit provided to the CAC for recognition purposes, and extending such protection throughout the statutory recognition process, starting from the point where the CAC accepts the union’s application for statutory recognition (expected to come into force in October 2026). 

WHAT NEXT?

The landscape of trade union reform will continue to shift over the next year, with most changes still to be introduced and many still subject to consultation and further decisions from the Government. 

For employers in the creative industries, these changes represent an opportunity to strengthen relationships with unions whilst ensuring compliance. Production companies, studios and broadcasters should review their current policies and prepare for the reforms to avoid potential risks during negotiations with unions.

For further information on these changes and for advice on how to prepare and comply with the new rules, please reach out to Yvonne Gallagher or Harry Wade, the authors of this article.

Please note that this guidance note summarises the changes outlined above and does not serve as formal legal advice.

The Employment Rights Act is now law: what this means for employers and employees

Posted on by Anna Weeden

After a complex journey through Parliament, the Employment Rights Act has officially passed into law. While many of its provisions will require further detail through regulations following consultations scheduled for 2026, some key points are already clear. This new legislation heralds significant changes to employment rights and obligations, with important implications for both employers and employees.

Key changes to unfair dismissal rights

The most notable change concerns unfair dismissal rights, which will no longer be a ‘day one’ right contrary to the Government’s initial proposal. Employees must now complete six months of service before being eligible to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. This new service requirement will take effect from 1 January 2027 and will therefore apply to employees who start work on or before 1 June 2026, provided they are still employed on 1 January 2027.

In a surprising twist, the current statutory cap on compensation for successful unfair dismissal claims has been abolished. Currently, compensation is capped at the lower of one year’s pay or £118,223, effectively limiting pay outs for higher earners. With the removal of both caps, claim values could increase significantly, particularly for higher-paid employees, unless new limits are introduced through future regulations. This unexpected development has raised concerns among employers and could dramatically alter settlement negotiations and tribunal outcomes.

These changes come at a time when the Employment Tribunal system is already experiencing chronic delays, with many cases taking more than a year to reach a hearing. The removal of compensation caps may further exacerbate these delays, as higher-value claims could crowd out lower-value cases. Employers are advised to address any performance or conduct issues promptly, ensuring any necessary terminations occur well before January 2027 to avoid potentially higher claim costs.

Family and leave rights: a day one entitlement

The Act also introduces day one rights for family and other types of leave, expected to come into effect sometime in 2027. These rights include:

  • Bereavement leave: Employees will be entitled to at least one week of bereavement leave, which will apply to early pregnancy loss as well as all other types of bereavement.
  • Parental leave: Employees will have the right to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave from day one of employment, to be taken any time between the birth of a child and their 18th birthday. Currently, low uptake of this leave is attributed to the fact that it is unpaid.
  • Maternity and paternity leave: These rights will also apply from day one, with no obligation for employees to disclose pregnancy or impending parenthood during recruitment.
  • Statutory sick pay: Employers will be required to pay statutory sick pay from the first day of illness, ending the current three-day waiting period. However, the statutory sick pay rate remains low, capped at £123 per week, with no indication of significant increases.

Trade Union rights: A shift in the balance of power

The Act introduces major changes to trade union rights, which will take effect from February 2026, with some immediate repeals for public sector workers. Key changes include:

  • The removal of restrictions on the number of employees allowed to picket their employer’s premises.
  • A reduction in the notice period for strike action from 14 days to 10 days.
  • An obligation on employers to provide all employees with written information about their right to join a trade union.

Other reforms

The Act also introduces a range of other significant reforms including:

  • Zero-hours contracts: Employees on zero-hours contracts will, in certain circumstances, have the right to guaranteed hours, and employers will be required to give reasonable advance notice of working hours.
  • Pay gap reporting: Employers with more than 250 staff will face extended paygap reporting obligations, aimed at addressing inequalities.
  • Menopause policies: Employers with over 250 employees will also be required to adopt and publish formal policies to support employees going through menopause.
  • Fair work agency: A newly created fair work agency will enforce rights related to minimum wage, sick pay, holiday pay, and modern slavery. However, further details are awaited regarding the extent to which this agency will replace employment tribunals for claims in these areas.

What’s next?

While the passing of the Employment Rights Act into law provides some clarity, much remains uncertain. Several consultations are underway, with more expected, and the start dates for many provisions have yet to be confirmed.

What is clear, however, is that the Act represents a significant shift in the balance of rights and obligations in employment relationships. Employers should take proactive steps to prepare for these changes, including reviewing policies, addressing current employee issues, and planning for the impact of these reforms on their business operations.

As more details emerge, employers will need to stay informed and adapt to ensure compliance with this transformative piece of legislation.

Early conciliation: a process in crisis

Posted on by Anna Weeden

Partner and head of the firm’s employment group, Yvonne Gallagher, has written an article published in The Times on the challenges facing early conciliation – a mandatory pre-tribunal step aimed at resolving employment disputes within six weeks.

In the article, Yvonne explores how rising demand and systemic delays are impacting the effectiveness of this process, to the detriment of employers and employees alike, and highlights potential solutions to alleviate pressure on both Acas and the wider tribunal system.

Read the full article here.

Yvonne Gallagher featured in Law360’s expert analysis series

Posted on by Nikhita Sagar

Partner and head of our employment practice, Yvonne Gallagher, has been featured in Law360‘s UK Expert Analysis series, where practice group leaders share their perspectives on the current market landscape and insights from their professional experience.

Yvonne discusses the challenges of dealing with clients’ emotions, the significance of the widening scope for discrimination disputes, and why junior lawyers should focus on learning the basic contractual and statutory principles of employment law.

The full piece can be accessed here or via Law360.

Equity vs Spotlight: ruling in landmark case exposes a gap in legal protection

Posted on by Anna Weeden

After this week’s ruling in the landmark case between Equity and Spotlight, partner and head of our employment practice, Yvonne Gallagher, has shared her insights in an article published by The Stage in which she provides an overview of the dispute and comments on its likely impact on the performing arts industry.

One key feature of the case was the High Court ruling that Spotlight is not an employment agency under the legislation and there is therefore no restriction on the fees it charges. This serves to highlight a gap in protection when it comes to businesses operating platforms of this nature.

The full article can be accessed here.*

Founded in 1880, The Stage is a weekly newspaper and online publication with the latest news, reviews, interviews, in-depth features and advice on working within the performing arts industry.

*Please note that a subscription is needed to view this content.

Harbottle & Lewis advises Amdax on its acquisition of a strategic stake in Custodiex

Posted on by Julia Krol

We have advised Amdax, a Netherlands-based digital asset service provider, on its acquisition of a strategic stake in UK-based Custodiex, a specialist in quantum-safe cold storage solutions for digital assets.

Founded to provide cutting-edge custody infrastructure for financial institutions, Custodiex has established itself as a key innovator in the digital asset custody sector. The Manchester-based company’s quantum-safe solutions are designed to be scalable and future-proof, and meet the stringent international ISO 27001 security standard. The transaction enables Amdax to enhance its comprehensive digital asset platform.

Our team was led by partner Tom Macleod and managing associate Rosie Marston, with support from managing associate Katerina Capras and associates Elizabeth Compton and Matthew Shannon. Partner Yvonne Gallagher and associate Elisabeth Davies advised on employment aspects, partner Shireen Peermohamed and associate Samuel Flack advised on IP matters and senior associate Matthew Stephenson advised on property law matters.

On working with Harbottle & Lewis, Martin Cernohorsky, Amdax Head of Legal, commented:

“Working with the Harbottle & Lewis team was a great pleasure. Their broad range of expertise and professionalism proved invaluable in navigating throughout the twists and turns of this deal. From the start we were in good hands. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with Harbottle & Lewis.”

Tom Macleod added:

“We are delighted to have supported Amdax on this strategically significant acquisition. The combination of Amdax’s regulated platform with Custodiex’s innovative custody technology creates a compelling proposition for institutional clients across Europe. We look forward to seeing the continued success of this partnership as the digital asset custody market matures.”

Harbottle & Lewis advises on the sale of performance-io to private equity firm Apiary Capital

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

We have advised the sellers of performance-io, a leading life sciences performance marketing, SEO and GEO agency, on its sale to private equity firm, Apiary Capital.

Founded to deliver cutting-edge performance marketing solutions, performance-io has established itself as a key player in the industry, working with clients to enhance their marketing strategies through data-driven insights and expertise. Headquartered in London, the business now operates globally with teams in the UK, US, India, Japan and South Africa. 

Founder and CEO Matt Lowe and his senior management team will remain with the business, focusing on driving performance-io’s further growth and development.

Our team was led by partner Ed Lane, with support from senior associate Alex Gays, and associates Elizabeth Compton and David Jones. Co-managing partner Tony Littner provided strategic support throughout, with partner David Scott advising on corporate tax matters. Partner Yvonne Gallagher and associate Harry Wade also advised on employment matters.

On working with Harbottle & Lewis, Matt Lowe commented: “I’d not worked with lawyers on a PE backed deal before, and frankly the mood music about the experience wasn’t great. However, the experience with Harbottle and Lewis was. From the first meeting with Tony and Ed, through to working with the broader team through some complex curve balls, we had a superb experience; working in a collaborative manner, learning loads and always with a calming, assured temperament. I can’t recommend H&L enough.”

Ed Lane added: “We are delighted to have supported Matt and his team on this milestone, and we look forward to seeing performance-io’s continued success in its partnership with Apiary Capital.”

Agree to disagree: what the Higgs v Farmor’s School judgment could mean for employers and employees

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Court of Appeal gave judgment last week in another of what has been a series of cases dealing with conflicts between beliefs expressed by employees, and the categories of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. 

In this case, an employee of a school, Mrs Higgs, had expressed concerns  via her private social media about teaching in schools relating to same-sex marriage and gender identity. Another parent saw the comments, which had been posted in a manner which did not identify the school and used the employee’s maiden name (which was different from the name she used at school), and had complained to the school about the views expressed, which were described as offensive. Following an investigation and disciplinary process, the employee was dismissed and brought, amongst other claims, a claim that she had been subjected to detriment because of her protected beliefs.

The case takes a robust approach, supporting the freedom of employees to express and manifest protected beliefs, though it recognises that some limitation is likely to be appropriate in the manner of expression of belief and related conduct.

Where does all of this leave employers in practice? They will be keen to ensure that they are complying with their Equality Act obligations in providing a safe workplace for all employees. However, they will surely also wish to avoid being drawn into personal disputes between employees arising out of conflicting views on contentious topics, or getting caught up in social media storms as part of wider campaigns on contentious topics, whether covered by the Equality Act or not.

Fundamentally,  it is useful to recognise that there is a level of conflict built into the Equality Act. Protected characteristics include gender re-assignment and sexual orientation, but protection of religion and belief  includes protection of a belief that sex is immutable and cannot be changed. Most of the major world religions do not recognise same sex marriage as the equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman. The Courts have also made clear that it is an error on the part of an employer to engage in stereotypes, which includes making an assumption about an individual’s personal beliefs by reference to their race or religion. Not all individuals who adhere to a religion believe in every rule or dogma of that religion, and religious beliefs are not always aligned with ethnic or national origin. Non-belief is protected in the same way as belief. Employers can therefore find themselves managing staff who hold deeply opposing views, each of which gives rise to a right to be protected from detriment because of their belief or other protected characteristics.

Employers will clearly  not want to find themselves refereeing disputes between employees or being pressured to take sides where conflict arises. There is a clear risk to employers of being on the receiving end of Employment Tribunal claims if they are seen to punish an individual because of a protected characteristic. Such cases will often be very popular in the media and can therefore do reputational harm as well as cost a lot of time and money.

The Court of Appeal judgment also expressly deals with the impact of rights to free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights in addition to the Equality Act rights. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, UK courts are obliged to interpret legislation in line with the European Convention as far as  is reasonably possible, so that the provisions of the convention are effectively indirectly introduced into UK statutory employment provisions. Such rights go beyond those relating to protected characteristics and will therefore include rights to speak about political issues of the day.

The right to free speech is not absolute. It is, however,  wide-ranging, and  in the Higgs v Farmor case, the Court of Appeal expressly cited the principle that the freedom to speak only inoffensively  is a freedom not worth having. There is no right to be protected from hearing things with which you disagree and employees could usefully be reminded of this.

Some limits on freedom of speech are permitted, to the extent that such speech would infringe on the rights and liberties of others, but no one has a right not to hear an opposing or, to them, disagreeable view. 

It will not be appropriate, therefore, for employers simply to seek to forbid employees from expressing views in the workplace or sharing the fact of any protected characteristic they may hold. In the Higgs v Farmor’s case, one of Mrs Higgs’ beliefs was that as a Christian she was required to bear witness to her beliefs, which would involve speaking about them. This is itself a protected belief, although the protection afforded to manifestation of belief does not extend to or permit continued proselytising or hectoring of those with different views.  Clear guidance that employees should not persist in conversations with others who  have made it known that they disagree, or are simply not interested, should be acceptable.

It is therefore useful for employers to now give thought to providing clear guidance to employees, whether in an overarching stand-alone policy detailing an expectation of respectful disagreement in relation to engagement on contentious topics, both in the workplace and beyond, or by adding to individual existing policies. The guidance can remind employees that they should not conduct themselves in a manner likely to amount to bullying or harassment, or to create a degrading or hostile environment for any employee. That does not preclude them from being open about their protected characteristics or beliefs, but they must not do so in a hostile or intimidating fashion. Employers can also helpfully remind staff that the workplace is not the right forum for discussion of contentious topics where feelings run high and disagreement is evident. 

Such guidance can remind staff that whilst they may enjoy the protections under the Equality Act, in relation to protection of belief non-believers are protected in the same way as believers, and so are free to make known their non- belief.  No employee is entitled to impose their views on a colleague or to subject a colleague to detriment on the basis of what they do or do not believe, and an Employer is entitled to say that disputes on  such issues are ultimately not for the workplace. 

Reminding employees that where differences arise, they should “agree to disagree”, or seek to disagree agreeably and respectfully, will be useful guidance both generally and as part of anti-harassment and bullying and equality polices published by employers. Such an approach can manage expectations and also provide employers with a  basis on which to intervene, if necessary, where conflict has arisen, without being seen to take sides.

Employers will already typically include provisions in social media policies, reminding employees not to identify their employer in personal posts and to avoid any suggestion that personal views expressed in any way represent the views of the employer.  A reminder that employees are entitled to have social media accounts and to post on subjects of interest, and that the employer does not take responsibility for such material, will also be helpful. This might usefully also remind employees that employers will not generally seek to intervene in disputes relating to such material.

We can hope that the pragmatic approach taken by the Court of Appeal might serve, in time, to discourage any practice of seeking to pressure employers to disassociate themselves from employees who have expressed views which are not palatable to all, provided that those views are not expressed in a manner which goes beyond the limits of freedom of speech.