Welcome to Employment Today

Here's our latest Employment newsletter, we hope you will find it useful. If you have any feedback, please send it through by replying to this email.

Abolishing age-based minimum wage bands: a landmark shift in UK employment law

Last month it was announced that the age-based minimum wage bands would be abolished from April 2026. This is a move that marks a significant shift in the UK’s approach to pay equality and employment rights.

Under the current framework, workers aged 18–20 are entitled to a minimum wage of £10.00 per hour, while those aged 21 and over receive £12.21 per hour, despite often performing the same roles. From April 2026, this will change. All adults aged 18 and over will be entitled to the same minimum hourly rate, regardless of age.

The Low Pay Commission (LPC) has been tasked with consulting employers, trade unions and workers on how best to phase out the age-based bands. Its recommendations are expected in October 2025, ahead of the April 2026 implementation date.

Implications for Employers

The move brings with it a series of operational challenges. Employers will need to:

Looking ahead

April 2026 may feel distant, but the scale of these changes means preparation should begin now. Employers who act early will not only ensure compliance but also demonstrate a proactive commitment to fairness and transparency.

The LPC’s recommendations this autumn will be key in shaping the final framework. But the direction of travel is clear - age bands are on their way out, and a uniform minimum hourly rate will apply to all.

Can post-employment detriments arising from whistleblowing disclosures fall within whistleblowing laws? 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed in the case of Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust that it is possible for whistleblowing protections to be extended to former employees.

Background

Dr Day was employed by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (the Respondent) between 2013 and 2014. In 2014, the Claimant raised multiple protected disclosures concerning patient safety.

In October 2014, Dr Day brought Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Respondent, claiming unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment. The parties agreed to settle the claim without compensation shortly after Day had given evidence.

Following settlement, the Respondent released a series of public statements in an attempt to combat criticism and respond to media interest.

These statements prompted Day to bring a further claim in the Employment Tribunal against the Respondent, alleging that the aforementioned statements resulted in post-employment detriments linked to his previous protected disclosures. Adding that the statements made were both false and defamatory.

The Employment Tribunal's (ET) decision

The ET dismissed Day's whistleblowing claim, asserting that the detriments suffered were not related to Day's previous protected disclosures. Instead, the ET found that the statements were the Respondent's attempt to improve their public image following substantial, critical media attention.

The ET further determined that the claim did not fall within the scope of whistleblowing protections. The ET reasoned that the alleged detriments were not sufficiently connected to the Claimant's employment as they occurred after Day had ceased working for the Respondent.

The Claimant subsequently appealed the ET's decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision

In its decision, the EAT held that the ET had made two errors in law when reaching their decision. Specifically, the EAT held that the ET wrongly concluded that the claim fell outside of the scope of whistleblowing protections because the detriments were suffered post-employment.

Despite this finding, the EAT dismissed Day's appeal, concluding that clear causation had not been established and therefore the errors made were immaterial to the ET's decision and the same conclusion would have been reached in any event.

Key takeaways

Whilst the EAT did not find in favour of Dr Day, this case does serve as a helpful reminder that post employment detriments can fall within the scope of whistleblowing protections.

In the event you are faced with circumstances which align with the facts of this case, we would suggest considering the following:

Please contact Lynsey Blyth if you wish to discuss the contents of this article, arrange for your whistleblowing policy to be amended or if you would like assistance in preparing or delivering staff training.

Q: We are looking to introduce a Terminal Illness policy to better support staff affected by terminal illness. What should such a policy look like?

A: Introducing a meaningful policy to support employees affected by terminal illness indicates a strong commitment to employee well-being and diversity, equality and inclusion. In our article – available here – we look at some of the key issues which are likely to crop up, and some of the topics your policy should cover. Of course, any policy should be coupled with training for managers to give them the tools they need to provide a safe, supportive and compassionate work environment for anyone affected by terminal illness.