People

Careers

Corporate

Commercial

Employment

News & Insights

Blog

News

Videos

Who we are

Environment & Sustainability

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

WONDER Foundation

Home

Resources

Registered in England &amp; Wales at 73 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ
<a href="tel:+442081596000">Tel: +44 (0)20 8159 6000</a>
Company Nr: 15894546
ICO Registration Nr:  ZB842887
VAT Registration Nr: 484 5226 73
Linnear Legal is an unregulated legal services provider, meaning the firm itself is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, the solicitors employed by the firm are individually regulated by the SRA. Please see our Terms and Conditions for further information on our regulatory status, complaints procedure and insurance arrangements.

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Policy

Privacy Policy

Services

Insights

About

We are driven by doing things differently, from every angle. 

Taking our Carbon Neutral Certified  status seriously.  

Putting equity and inclusion at the heart of everything we do.

Supporting sustainable employment and gender equality with WONDER. 

WONDER foundation

Contact us

The previous year was a significant one for developments in employment law, with a new UK government taking office in the summer – ushering in a new wave of reforms with an emphasis on enhanced rights for workers – and with multiple cases before the Supreme Court reaching their conclusions.
In this article, we take a look back at some of the most significant developments in employment law in 2024.
<h3>The Employment Rights Bill 2024</h3>
Delivering on its commitment to put out new legislation on its <a href="https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/MakeWorkPay.pdf">Plan To Make Work Pay</a> within its first 100 days of office, the Labour government published its new <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737">Employment Rights Bill 2024</a> in October 2024, with changes aimed at strengthening protections for workers and promoting fair employment practices. However, it has been noted that the bill does not appear to be as wide-reaching or immediately effective as the Labour Party’s manifesto implied, and a significant number of proposals have been quietly dropped.
Among the 28 changes proposed by the bill, some of the most notable reforms include day-one rights for employees to be protected against unfair dismissal, rules against sexual harassment, the right to flexible working and the banning of zero-hours contracts. The bill also promises to reexamine the law’s approach to ‘fire and rehire’, though it falls short of calling for an outright ban, which is what the Labour Party initially proposed in its <a href="https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/MakeWorkPay.pdf">manifesto</a>. Further, a proposed shift to a two-part framework of employment status was also absent from the bill.
The full extent of the bill may not be apparent until later in this Parliament&#8217;s lifetime, with a consultation on the bill due later this year and the majority of reforms not taking place until 2026.
For more information on the Employment Rights Bill 2024, see our <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/resources/labours-new-employment-rights-bill/">article covering the key proposals outlined by the new government</a>.
<h3>Fire and rehire: Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW 2024</h3>
‘Fire and rehire’ – the process of dismissing an employee and offering a new position, usually with worse terms – is a hot political topic at the moment, with the new Labour government having pledged to ‘end the scourges’ of the practice in its <a href="https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/MakeWorkPay.pdf">Plan to Make Work Pay</a>. But as it stands, the practice is still legal, provided it follows the new Code of Practice that came into force in July and doesn’t involve unfair dismissal or discrimination.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0133">case</a>, which involved Tesco employees being fired and rehired after both parties were unable to reach an agreement over pay, might appear to contradict the current law. After all, it was ruled that Tesco’s actions constituted a breach of contract, and Tesco was restrained from dismissing the relevant employees.
But the Supreme Court’s judgment focused on Tesco’s promises made as part of a collective agreement relating to retained pay to these employees back in 2007, which stated that said pay was ‘guaranteed for life’. It was the retained pay that Tesco sought to negotiate away in 2021, with the employees being offered compensation or dismissal and re-engagement on the same terms, albeit without retained pay.
While this case is notable in the current political context, highlighting a controversial area of employment law, it ultimately testified to the importance of contract law principles.
<h3>Employment status of football referees tested in HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Limited</h3>
This case asked the simple question of whether football referees engaged on a match-by-match basis were self-employed or employees, which would have significant implications on the tax status of self-employed workers in the UK, such as freelancers, contractors and workers in the gig economy.
The argument was that because their alleged employer did not have the right to intervene during the performance of their duties (i.e. while they were refereeing on the pitch), they were not technically employees. This follows the principle that, for a worker to be an ‘employee’, there must be ‘sufficient degree of control’ over the worker by the employer.
However, the Supreme Court noted that another principle that determines the employment status of a worker – a ‘mutuality of obligations’ or ‘wage-work bargain’ – was met, and also held that there are circumstances where an employer would not be able to interfere with an employee’s work, such as in the case of a medical surgeon.
The Supreme Court held that the employers of part-time referees did have a sufficient ‘framework of control’ over referees, but the case has now been remitted back to the first-tier tribunal for further examination over whether the criteria for contracts of employment were met.
Although this is primarily a decision relating to tax, the principles are likely to apply to any arrangement where an individual is engaged on a non-employment basis (e.g. as a consultant).
<h3>Indirect associative discrimination: UK law follows EHRC lead in BA v Rollett</h3>
In an important tribunal decision, a recent amendment to the Equality Act 2010 on indirect associative discrimination was upheld, cementing into UK law a principle of EU law first established in 2015.
‘Indirect associative discrimination’ refers to those who suffer the same consequences of a disadvantaged group with protected characteristics, despite not sharing that group’s protected characteristics.
In the case of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bdccccc32366481ca49110/British_Airways_PLC_v_1__Mr_B_Rollett_and_others_2__Minister_for_Women_and_Equalities__2024__EAT_131.pdf">British Airways Plc v Rollett &amp; Ors</a>, a group of claimants alleged to have suffered indirect discrimination due to a restructuring exercise at British Airways (BA), which disproportionately affected employees living abroad (i.e. mostly non-British nationals) and those with childcare or caring responsibilities (i.e. mostly women). This covered two protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: race and gender.
<ul>
<li>See also: <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/resources/labours-right-to-switch-off-what-we-know-so-far/">Labour’s ‘right to switch off’: what we know so far</a></li>
<li>See also: <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/resources/labours-new-employment-rights-bill/">Labour’s new Employment Rights Bill</a></li>
<li>See also: <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/resources/what-does-new-eu-ai-act-mean-your-business/">What does the new EU AI Act mean for your business?</a></li>
</ul>
However, there were also employees who suffered the same consequences as these protected groups without possessing said protected characteristics, such as a man with childcaring responsibilities and a British national who lived in France.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the Employment Tribunal’s ruling, dismissing BA’s appeal that Section 19A of the Equality Act 2010, which came into effect on 1 January 2024, was being misinterpreted. This confirmed that the UK law on indirect associative discrimination was consistent with EU law principles first established in a European Court of Justice ruling in 2015 in <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62014CJ0083">CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD</a>.
<h3>£4.6m awarded in discrimination and harassment case</h3>
In March 2024, the Employment Tribunal gave a judgment on what was believed to be the largest compensation award made by an tribunal in a public sector case: <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619fa205e90e0704423dbf5b/Mrs_R_Wright-Turner__vs_London_Borough_of_Hammersmith_and_Fulham_.pdf">Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham</a>.
The case followed the dismissal of Ms Rachael Wright-Turner, who was found to have been subject to discrimination and harassment because of her disability. She began to suffer symptoms of PTSD after working as the humanitarian assistance lead at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire in 2017.
During the case, it was disclosed that Ms Wright-Turner made the council aware she was having counselling following a diagnosis of PTSD, and that she had also been diagnosed with ADHD. Concerns were raised about her performance in relation to her diagnoses, and she was accused by former chief executive Kim Smith née Dero of having not disclosed her ADHD diagnosis in the recruitment process.
In May 2018, on the same day that Wright-Turner was falsely accused of not disclosing her ADHD diagnosis, at a local pub, she disclosed to her colleagues that she was struggling with her mental health and was concerned about the repercussions of taking sick leave before completing probation. She subsequently suffered a panic attack, was taken to A&amp;E, and was found to be traumatised and suicidal. According to the interim HR director at the time Mark Grimley, Wright-Turner had ‘had a lot to drink’, which was found to be untrue.
Following Wright-Turner being signed off from work, Smith sent a letter extending her probationary period, which was found to have been back-dated. Wright-Turner was then dismissed in August 2018.
The Tribunal found that Smith had deliberately misled the employment tribunal about when Wright-Turner’s probation would be extended, and that Smith and Grimley had doctored the dismissal letter to make it appear that it had been sent before Wright-Turner launched a grievance process.
This case was of particular note because it highlighted the importance of following ‘the provisions or spirit of the Probationary Procedure’ and how carefully employers should follow rules around probation and dismissal.
We expect further legal developments on unfair dismissal following the Labour government’s changes to employment law in its Employment Rights Bill 2024.
<iframe class="flourish-embed-iframe" style="width: 100%; height: 600px;" title="Interactive or visual content" src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/21791899/embed" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h3>Right to strike during work hours: Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd 2024</h3>
The case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0080">Mercer v Alternative Future Group Limited 2024</a> addressed whether and to what extent employers can disincentivise participation in industrial action, and focused on whether rights under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) are compatible with article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to strike.
It followed an employee who was also a trade union representative, and who had been involved in organising strikes during work hours. This employee was suspended from work and subjected to disciplinary proceedings, upon which the employee claimed that, under section 146 of this TULRCA, this constituted detrimental treatment in relation to her union activities.
The case went back and forth between the Employee Tribunal and the Employee Appeal Tribunal, who disagreed over the interpretation of compatibility between the two laws, until the Supreme Court ruled that section 146 TULRCA was incompatible with the EHRC insofar as it fails to protect against non-dismissal sanctions for lawful strike participation. However, the Supreme Court refrained from rewriting legislation, stating this responsibility lies with Parliament.
This case was an important one in the current economic and political environment, where industrial action continues to play an important role. As <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/bbfw/lms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Office of National Statistic data shows</a>, in the year 2023, 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes – the highest number of days lost to strikes since 1989, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-suffers-worst-year-strike-action-since-1989-2023-02-14/">the previous worst year for strike action</a>. It also highlights the current pressure on the government to align with the ECHR.
We offer a range of <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/employment/">employment law services</a> at Linnear Legal. If you would like to know more, <a href="https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/get-in-touch/">speak to a lawyer at Linnear Legal</a>.

Employment law 2024 roundup: key cases and developments

Explore the key changes in the Employment Rights Bill 2024, from unfair dismissal to flexible working and how they impact UK businesses.

Employment law 2024 roundup: key cases and developments | Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/shutterstock_2478767877-2.jpg

Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Linnear-Legal-logo.png

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/557c7f891380b6950d58942a774782ca?s=96&d=mm&r=g