Panoramic: Automotive and Mobility 2025
News
Employment in the news | November 2025
25 November 2025
The Employment Rights Bill continues its parliamentary ping pong. High levels of tribunal claims are putting ACAS under pressure; the government responds by increasing the early conciliation period to 12 weeks. The government also announced a review of carer's leave. Technical decisions on insolvency in a TUPE context and whistleblowing detriments are important for employers.
Chapter 1
Ping pong, early conciliation and carer’s leave review
As the House of Lords rejected the Employment Rights Bill for a third time, we still don’t know when the Bill will become law. Once it passes, much of the detail will be fleshed out through regulations but so far there haven’t been any further consultations outlining what the government has in mind in key areas.
Even before the new rights in the Employment Rights Bill take effect, there is rising demand for early conciliation, putting ACAS under pressure. To try to relieve some of that pressure, the government is extending the existing period of early conciliation from six to twelve weeks for early conciliation requests made on or after 1 December 2025. It hopes that this will allow parties to resolve disputes, but it will inevitably introduce more delay into the process if claims cannot be settled at an early stage. That will be compounded when tribunal time limits increase to six months, probably in October 2026.
On 19 November, the government announced its promised review into unpaid carer’s leave, to assess how the right is working in practice and whether to introduce paid leave in some or all cases. However, as one of the core aims of the review is to identify options with “low or no cost to business and the exchequer”, introducing paid leave doesn’t seem to be a political priority. The review is expected to last until 2027, with a formal consultation on policy options in 2026.
Next steps
- We’ll be publishing an Employment Bite on the key points from the Employment Rights Bill when the legislation passes, followed by a more detailed webinar in due course.
- In the meantime, keep an eye out for further Employment Rights Bill consultations.
- Review how effective carer’s leave rights are for you and your employees in practice, to inform a response to next year’s consultation.
Chapter 2
Whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and detriments
The Court of Appeal decision in Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns Development Ltd v Treadwell confirms the earlier decision in Timis v Osipov, albeit reluctantly.
The issue was whether an employee could argue that their employer was vicariously liable for their dismissal as a whistleblowing detriment, as well as bringing an automatic unfair dismissal claim. There are good tactical reasons why an employee might want to pursue both a detriment and an unfair dismissal claim, as we explain in more detail here.
The Court of Appeal followed the Timis v Osipov approach, which found that employees could bring both claims, despite wording in the legislation that appears to exclude this. This ensured that whistleblowers are properly protected. However, it was clear that the Court of Appeal would have taken a different approach in Wicked Vision if it had been looking at the issue afresh. This suggests that the cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Next steps
- Monitor to see if the employers apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Consider refreshing whistleblowing training and policies. This may help establish an “all reasonable steps” defence to a whistleblowing-related detriment claim.
Chapter 3
TUPE and insolvency
Employers buying an insolvent business will be interested in the decision in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Sahonta. The EAT found TUPE didn’t transfer employee liabilities to an acquiring business when a transfer took place after the target appointed a provisional liquidator. The decision highlights that it is not always in employee interests for TUPE to apply in insolvency situations.
A bakery, Morton, was in financial distress. Phoenix entered into a conditional agreement to buy it on 3 March 2023. Morton ceased to trade on the same date and appointed a provisional liquidator on 7 March. The business transferred to Phoenix on 21 March. If Morton was subject to insolvency proceedings instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets at that point, the insolvency exception in TUPE meant that employee liabilities did not transfer to Phoenix. Employees could pursue the national insurance fund for things like unpaid wages, subject to applicable limits.
The EAT agreed with the tribunal that employee liabilities did not transfer under TUPE. The insolvency exception recognises that although TUPE is primarily intended to safeguard the rights of employees, it may be in employee interests for some jobs to be saved instead of all jobs being lost. It promotes a rescue culture for transferees to be relieved of employee liabilities if the requirements of the exception are met. Proceedings had been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets when Morton appointed the provisional liquidator and the insolvency exception was satisfied. There was no suggestion that the parties were deliberately trying to avoid TUPE.
Next steps
- The tribunal’s conclusion that the insolvency exception applied was consistent with TUPE’s purpose of facilitating the retention of at least some jobs.
- However, cases are very fact specific, including in relation to the date on which a transfer takes place.
- If the tribunal had found that a transfer occurred at the point that the conditional sale agreement was reached, the position would have been different.
Authored by Ed Bowyer, Stefan Martin, and Jo Broadbent.
Contacts
Articles you may be interested in
View more insights and analysis
