Employment Edit: 17 September 2026

Legal updates

Employment tribunal time limits

Earlier this month, regulations were published which confirm that the time limit for bringing most employment tribunal claims will be extended from three to six months with effect from 1 October 2026. The new time limit will be forward-looking only, so claims relating to dismissals or alleged acts that happen before 1 October 2026 will generally continue to be subject to the three-month time limit.

It remains to be seen whether the longer time limit will lead to an increase in the number of claims brought (because, for example, claimants have more time to consider their options and bring a claim) or a decrease (because, for example, there will be a longer period during which the parties may settle). What is for certain is that the extended time limit will lead to a longer period of uncertainty for employers before they know whether a claim has been brought. To prepare for this reform, employers should review the document retention procedures that they have in place to ensure that evidence is not automatically or inadvertently destroyed when a dispute is in contemplation. It is also important to make sure that relevant staff are aware of the change, particularly your HR and People teams.

Equal pay

In an important equal pay judgment published last week, the EAT held that a retailer was justified in paying its warehouse workers more than its shop staff, even though their work had been found to be of equal value.

Around 3,500 sales workers brought equal pay claims against the retailer on the basis that they were paid less than comparator warehouse workers. The workforce in shops was roughly 77% female, while the warehouses had a more even gender split. An employment tribunal had earlier established that sales staff were paid less than their comparators and that the work done by sales and warehouse staff was of equal value. The tribunal then held that the retailer had failed to justify the difference in basic pay – its justification amounted to a costs-saving only (which is not a legitimate reason for unequal pay) and it should have paid sales staff the same as warehouse staff as it could afford to do so. The retailer appealed.

The EAT overturned the tribunal’s findings. The retailer needed to pay warehouse workers more because of recruitment and retention pressures that did not apply to sales workers – it was harder to attract and keep warehouse staff. The EAT held that this was a legitimate aim, and the difference in pay was a proportionate way of achieving that aim. The tribunal was wrong to ask why the retailer did not raise shop workers’ pay to the same level when it should instead have focussed on why warehouse workers needed to be paid more. The claimants’ solicitors have indicated that they intend to appeal the decision.

(Next Retail Limited v Thandi and others)

Flexible working reform

We now know the planned implementation date for the flexible working reforms contained in the ERA – put autumn 2027 in your diaries now. Those reforms will introduce a new reasonableness test and a new process for consulting with employees about their flexible working request.

• The new reasonableness test – Employers will only be able to refuse a request where it is “reasonable” for it to do so on one or more of the existing eight statutory grounds. The employer will be required to state the ground for refusal and explain why it considers that it is reasonable to refuse on that basis.

• Consulting with the employee – The new process requirements for consulting with an employee about their request were the subject of a government consultation earlier this year. The government published its response this week, outlining the approach it intends to take in secondary legislation governing the consultation process. Its planned approach includes the following requirements for employers to:
  • hold a meeting with the employee before rejecting their request to consider the feasibility of the requested agreements and address challenges and, if the arrangements are not feasible, explore alternatives.
  • undertake the meeting with a view to reaching an agreement.
  • provide a written notification to the employee of the outcome of the meeting.

Some of the government’s original proposals (such as a proposed requirement for the employer to clarify whether the employee would like the request to be considered as a reasonable adjustment) will not be statutory requirements of the consultation process and will instead be dealt with in guidance.

Menstruation and menopause at work

The British Standards Institution (BSI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) have launched new guidance for employers on how they can support employees through menstruation and menopause. The guidance aims to “stem the departure of experienced women from the workforce early and not out of choice”.

The new guidance is in the form of a joint British Standard and ISO standard called “Occupational health and safety management – Menstruation and menopause in the workplace”. It provides practical guidance and recommendations that cover a range of topics, including workplace culture, manager awareness, training, and workplace design. It also gives some examples of practical adjustments that may help employees, from physical supports (such as fans/heaters and modification of uniforms) to environmental factors (such as where the employee works and the availability of toilet facilities). The guidance is likely to be of particular interest to employers with 250 or more employees ahead of the introduction next year of a new requirement for such employers to create and publish action plans showing the steps they are taking to support employees through the menopause.