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.

Youth Jobs Grant: employers could claim £3,000 for recruiting young talent

In a response to high levels of youth unemployment and inactivity, the Government has implemented the 'Youth Jobs Grant'. The initiative was implemented on 30 June 2026 and offers employers £3,000 to recruit an eligible young person for a minimum of 16 weeks. Its primary purpose is to encourage the recruitment of young people who may otherwise find it difficult to enter into the labour market.

Youth unemployment rates

Between February 2026 and April 2026, there were 735,000 young people aged 16 to 24 in unemployment. This is an increase of 109,000 from the previous year, leaving the current youth unemployment rate at 16.2%.

As a result, the Government is investing an additional £2.5 billion in the Youth Guarantee and Growth and Skills Levy. This spans a number of funded programmes and initiatives to help employers benefit from meaningful opportunities for young people aged 16-24, one of which is the Youth Jobs Grant.

The Youth Jobs Grant

This initiative gives businesses £3,000 for hiring an employee aged 18 to 24 who has been in receipt of Universal Credit and out of work for at least 6 months. The grant is staged across 4 months, with £1,800 paid from 6 weeks of the individual's employment, and £1,200 after 18 weeks.

The grant applies to each eligible young person employed and will operate for 3 years before closing to all new participants in October 2028.

Eligible vacancies must:

Once live, eligible vacancies will be passed to Department for Work and Pensions Work (DWP) Coaches who will match the vacancy to eligible and suitable young people. These individuals will be referred to each vacancy and proceed to the employer's application process. If successful, before their employment begins, employers must notify the DWP of the successful candidate and when they start employment.

Through providing employers with financial support to recruit eligible young people into suitable jobs, the scheme is expected to support 60,000 job opportunities over three years. Ultimately, the aim is to give young people the opportunity to develop the skills and experience they need to move towards sustained employment.

Next steps for employers

Employers who are planning to recruit over the coming years should consider whether their vacancies could qualify under the scheme and review recruitment plans to identify roles that could be filled by eligible young people. Before applying for the grant, employers should review the Government's guidance here to ensure eligibility criteria are met and funding is secured.

Corporate criminal liability: what employers need to know about the Crime and Policing Act 2026

From provisions about anti-social behaviour to the criminal exploitation of persons, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the Act) is taking steps to crack down on crime and rebuild public confidence in policing. Whilst the headlines do not appear to be of corporate relevance, section 250 may have created one of the most significant shifts in corporate accountability for decades.

From 29 June 2026, the Act substantially expands UK corporate liability. Understanding the remit and impact of the incoming reform is critical for employers to mitigate risk exposure.

Background and incoming reform

Corporate liability has historically been subject to only limited reform. Until 2023, companies could be held liable for economic offences only where the offence was committed by an individual representing the organisation’s “directing mind and will”, known as the identification doctrine. In practice, this was generally limited to the board of directors, managing directors and other senior officers carrying out core management functions.

Recognising that this approach no longer reflected the reality of decision-making within large and complex organisations, the Government moved away from the narrow “directing mind” test in 2023 by introducing senior manager attribution. This meant companies could be liable for economic offences committed by a senior manager. From 29 June 2026, the law will expand further, with companies potentially liable for any criminal offence committed by a senior manager acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority.

For these purposes, a senior manager is defined broadly as an individual who plays a significant role in either:

This wide definition of senior management leaves the courts to determine seniority on a case-by-case basis, bestowing permission to look beyond the formal hierarchy of C-suite or board level individuals. As a result, liability may arise from decisions taken within business units, regional operations or functional leadership.

Any given company risks liability specifically when a senior manager acts in the actual or apparent scope of their authority. This will be found if the act was of a type that would ordinarily be undertaken by a person in that position.

In practice, companies need to take intentional action to capture the true picture of decision making in their organisations. This means mapping out management structures through functional influence, rather than relying solely on job titles or formal reporting lines. To ensure that this exercise is as proactive as possible, companies should place themselves in the minds of a prosecutor, asking the question: is there sufficient evidence to identify that this individual exercised decision-making control or influence over a substantial part of the company's activities?

This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk of corporate liability, particularly given that there is no statutory "reasonable procedures" defence. In other words, strong policies and procedures will not, of themselves, prevent liability from arising.

Nonetheless, they remain highly relevant. Prosecutions must still be made in the public interest, and a company with robust compliance programmes designed to prevent offences may be better placed to argue that prosecuting the company is not in the public interest, with enforcement action more properly focused on individual liability instead.

Why HR teams are a part of corporate crime prevention

The Act is likely to drive cultural and operational changes in organisations, with a clear shift towards evidential readiness and the positioning of integrity at the heart of senior leadership. HR departments have a meaningful role in driving these changes across a number of areas.

Culture: Companies should consider rewarding ethical leadership in performance reviews and promotions to deter misconduct. A workplace where integrity is positively reinforced is a workplace that is less likely to tolerate or enable misconduct.

In addition, fostering a culture of transparency at all levels is critical. HR departments should encourage employees to report concerns about wrongdoing by senior management and ensure that structures are in place to investigate such concerns independently. A culture of transparency combined with clear escalation frameworks is a powerful preventative measure that should not be overlooked.

HR departments should consider reviewing and strengthening their whistleblowing, harassment, bullying, victimisation and speak-up policies.

Investigations: Internal investigations should be aligned with attribution risk. HR departments should approach every investigation through a preventative lens, with a focus on identifying risks early and escalating them where necessary.

Recruitment: When appointing individuals to senior positions, HR departments should ensure thorough verification of references and assess integrity risks as part of the recruitment process. Where a role may fall within the definition of a senior manager, job descriptions should clearly outline the scope of decision making authority and attach explicit ethical expectations.

Conclusion

Organisations must reassess how decision-making authority operates in practice, identifying senior managers through a functional, evidence-based lens rather than formal titles. Proactive governance and evidential readiness will be critical, with HR playing a central role in embedding transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership across the business.

While robust policies remain important, they will not in themselves shield companies from liability; instead, a strong compliance culture, supported by early escalation and clear accountability, will better position organisations to manage risk and, where relevant, influence prosecutorial decisions on public interest grounds.

Ultimately, companies must ensure that they are equipped to identify, challenge and escalate risks before they materialise as criminal exposure.

If you would like support in preparing policy reviews, senior manager mapping, or advice on internal investigations, our Employment Law team at Michelmores would be happy to assist.

Burger v JD Wetherspoon plc: key employer takeaways on vicarious liability

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Burger v JD Wetherspoon plc [2026] EWCA Civ 804 provides useful reassurance for employers that outsource services. The key point is that a business will not generally be vicariously liable for wrongdoing committed by workers employed by a genuine independent contractor. However, the case is also a reminder that courts will look at the reality of the relationship, not just the contractual label.

Background

Mr Burger was assaulted by door supervisors supplied by Risk Solutions Ltd under a security services contract with JD Wetherspoon. He sought to hold Wetherspoon vicariously liable for the conduct of the door supervisors after Risk Solutions Ltd entered liquidation.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that Risk Solutions was a genuine independent contractor carrying on its own business and that JD Wetherspoon was therefore not vicariously liable for the actions of Risk Solutions' employees. The Court distinguished this case from the earlier decision in Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd, where a nightclub was found liable because it exercised extensive day-to-day control over a door supervisor supplied by a contractor such that it was effectively treated as his temporary employer. By contrast, Wetherspoon did not exercise that level of control over the door supervisors supplied by Risk Solutions.

Key employer takeaways

The key lesson is that outsourcing alone will not eliminate liability risks, but businesses that avoid exercising extensive control over contractor staff and maintain robust contractual and insurance protections are less likely to be treated as a temporary employer for the purposes of vicarious liability.

The case also highlights the importance of undertaking due diligence on contractors. Employers should not only seek contractual indemnities but should also verify that contractors maintain appropriate insurance throughout the engagement.

For employers, this case is a welcome reminder that the expanding scope of vicarious liability still has its limits. However, it does demonstrate that the distinction between a genuine independent contractor and a temporary deemed employer will often turn on the level of practical control exercised over contractor staff. It is therefore vital that employers review outsourcing arrangements carefully to ensure that the operational practices and contractual position align with the contractor's independence.

Q: We've suspended an employee pending a disciplinary investigation and they refuse to engage or turn up to investigation meetings. What should we do?

A: The investigator should explore the reasons behind the lack of engagement – is there a legitimate reason or are they being uncooperative? The employer will need to consider if it can continue with the investigation without the employee’s input. It may be appropriate to invite the employee to produce a witness statement instead of attending an investigation meeting. All attempts to engage with the employee should be documented so there is a proper paper trail. Ultimately, the employer may decide to simply proceed, but the investigation should be particularly thorough.