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.

Collective redundancy rules are changing – what does that mean in practice?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 is introducing significant changes to the collective redundancy framework. While some of the detail is still to be confirmed, the direction of travel is clear: more employers will be required to collectively consult, and the consequences of getting it wrong will be more severe.

What is the current position?

Under the existing regime, employers are required to collectively consult where they propose 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90-day period.

This “single establishment” test has, in practice, allowed employers to structure redundancy exercises across different sites in a way that avoids triggering collective consultation obligations altogether.

However, the risk of non-compliance has already increased. From April 2026, the maximum protective award for failing to collectively consult has doubled from 90 days’ to 180 days’ pay per affected employee, significantly increasing financial exposure for employers.

What is changing?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 will retain the current test, but introduces a new, additional trigger. In future, employers will also need to collectively consult where redundancies reach a specified threshold across the organisation as a whole, even if no individual site meets the 20-employee threshold.

The precise threshold is yet to be set and will be determined by further regulations. However, the policy rationale is clear: to prevent large-scale redundancy programmes from falling outside the collective consultation regime simply because they are spread across multiple locations.

What does this mean for employers?

Although the new organisation-wide threshold is not expected to come into force until 2027, employers should begin factoring it into workforce planning now.

First, the scope for avoiding collective consultation by structuring redundancies across different sites is likely to reduce significantly. Employers will need to consider redundancy numbers across the whole employing entity, rather than looking at individual locations in isolation.

Secondly, this change places a greater emphasis on early-stage planning. Whether collective consultation is required is a threshold question which will shape the timeline of any redundancy exercise. That assessment will become more complex where multiple teams or sites are involved.

Finally, the increased protective award underlines the importance of getting the process right. Collective consultation is not simply an administrative step – it requires meaningful engagement with employee representatives about the proposals, including ways to avoid redundancies, reduce numbers, and mitigate their impact.

What should employers be doing now?

Our key tips are:

Promotion season: the sponsor licence compliance trap hiding in plain sight

The spring and summer promotion season is one of the more rewarding moments in the HR calendar. It is a chance to recognise hard work, reward loyalty, and signal that ambition pays off. However, for employers who sponsor overseas workers, a well-deserved promotion can quietly create a serious compliance problem if it is not handled with care.

CoS and SOC

The compliance issue lies in the relationship between a sponsored worker’s Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC, also known as “occupation code”) code that underpins it. When a sponsor assigns a CoS through the Sponsor Management System (SMS), it must select a SOC code that accurately reflects the worker’s proposed duties. That SOC code then determines whether the role is eligible for sponsorship, the applicable skill threshold, and the minimum salary the worker must be paid.

In effect, the CoS is a snapshot of a specific job, with specific duties, at a specific point in time. A promotion can change that picture significantly. A sponsored worker who moves from analyst to manager, or from a technical role into a leadership one, may take on duties that no longer sit comfortably within the SOC code recorded on their CoS, and accordingly may require a new CoS and visa. The Home Office’s sponsor licence guidance is clear that the CoS and SOC code must always match the genuine duties of the role.

When does a promotion trigger a new CoS?

The key question for employers is whether a promotion changes a sponsored worker’s duties as noted on their CoS. If the duties of the new position fall under a different SOC code, a new CoS must be assigned and a fresh visa application submitted and approved before the worker can start the new role. Crucially, the sponsored worker should not start performing the new role until the new visa application has been approved. Accordingly, if a new CoS and visa application are required, acting quickly is critical to avoid business disruption.

By contrast, where a promotion keeps the sponsored worker’s duties within the same SOC code, a new application is not normally necessary. However, this does not mean that HR can simply file the promotion letter and move on. Even where the new role remains within the same SOC code and no fresh visa application is required, the change may still need to be reported on the SMS within ten working days if there are significant changes to the details of the sponsored worker’s employment such as a change of job title, core duties, or a promotion.

Risk of getting it wrong

The consequences of allowing a sponsored worker to perform duties that differ from those listed on their CoS are not trivial. A mismatch between the SOC code, CoS duties, and the worker’s actual duties is exactly the kind of discrepancy a Home Office compliance officer is trained to identify. It can call into question whether the role was ever genuine, and whether the sponsor is meeting its core duties to maintain accurate records and report relevant changes.

The penalties range from the sponsor licence being suspended to it being revoked. Revocation can be severely damaging as it can place the immigration status of all sponsored workers at risk, prevent the business from sponsoring new workers, and may restrict the business from applying for a fresh sponsor licence for a significant period. For businesses that depend on international talent, that can be a critical operational risk. These risks are increased by the current immigration enforcement climate. The Home Office has confirmed record illegal-working enforcement activity as sponsor licence holders face heightened scrutiny through compliance visits, audits, and data-led checks. Indeed, the Home Office’s illegal working enforcement data shows that in 2025 there were 12,791 illegal working visits and 8,971 arrests. This was described as the most successful year on record for illegal working enforcement activity.

Practical next steps

Promotions should be a positive milestone, not an unexpected compliance risk. We help employers identify sponsor licence issues before they become Home Office problems. Before confirming a promotion for a sponsored worker, HR teams should:

The safest approach is to build immigration compliance into the promotion process before decisions are implemented. We can assist with reviewing sponsored workers’ roles, mapping duties to the correct SOC code, identifying whether a new CoS and visa application is required, and ensuring any necessary SMS reports are made correctly.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Madni Chaudhary or Lynsey Blyth.

Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd: The limits of “protected conversations” clarified

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered the scope of “protected conversations” under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd [2026] EAT 58. The decision provides a timely reminder that, while protected conversations remain a useful tool for employers, their protection is both limited in scope and dependent on how they are conducted.

Background

Mr Tarbuc was employed by Martello Piling Ltd and was ultimately dismissed, by reason of redundancy. Prior to his dismissal, he was invited to a meeting with the employer’s managing director at which a settlement offer was presented. Mr Tarbuc alleged that he had been ‘ambushed’ by the meeting, given no notice of its purpose, denied the opportunity to be accompanied, and placed under pressure to accept the offer, with redundancy presented as the alternative. He subsequently brought claims including unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and discrimination.

The employer sought to rely on section 111A ERA, arguing that the discussion was a protected conversation and therefore inadmissible. At first instance, the Employment Tribunal accepted that position, finding that there had been no improper behaviour and excluding all references to the meeting from the proceedings.

The EAT’s decision

The EAT allowed the appeal in part, identifying two key errors in the Tribunal’s approach. First, it clarified the scope of section 111A. The statutory protection applies only to ordinary unfair dismissal claims. It does not extend to other causes of action, such as claims for unlawful deductions from wages or discrimination-related claims. The Tribunal had therefore erred by excluding evidence of the conversation across all claims, rather than adopting a more nuanced, claim-specific approach.

Secondly, and more importantly for the purposes of this article, the EAT found that the Tribunal had taken a too narrow approach to the question of ‘improper behaviour’. The Tribunal had focused solely on what was said during the meeting and the tone in which it was said. However, the EAT emphasised that the assessment must be undertaken holistically. This requires consideration of the wider circumstances, including how the meeting was arranged and the employee’s experience of the process.

In this case, the Tribunal had failed to engage with Mr Tarbuc’s claims that he was taken by surprise and denied the opportunity to be accompanied. Those factors were potentially relevant to whether the employer’s conduct was improper and therefore capable of disapplying the statutory protection. The case has been remitted to an alternative tribunal for reconsideration on the correct legal basis.

Practical implications

The decision underlines that protected conversations are not a blanket shield. Employers frequently assume that discussions labelled as ‘without prejudice’ or ‘protected’ will remain confidential across all claims. Tarbuc makes clear that this is not quite the case.

This case also highlights the importance of following the correct procedure. Although section 111A is designed to facilitate discussions about termination, the way those discussions are conducted remains highly relevant. Factors such as lack of notice, perceived pressure, or failure to allow a companion may not automatically amount to improper behaviour, but they will be taken into account when determining whether the statutory protection applies.

Employers should therefore exercise caution when initiating pre-termination discussions. Providing reasonable notice of meetings, allowing employees a meaningful opportunity to consider proposals, and avoiding any suggestion of coercion will reduce the risk of disputes about admissibility.

Q: We're looking to employ someone from a competitor, but they are subject to restrictive covenants. What should we do?

A: Employing someone subject to post-termination restrictions can be complex, and it will depend on the broad circumstances of the employment, the duties undertaken by the employee, what duties they are to undertake for your business and the type of restrictive covenants (and terms of such) contained within their employment contract. There are a number of other factors that may also materially impact on whether the covenants are enforceable, such as the basis on which they are departing from their current employer, whether the contract was signed by the employee, and whether the employee's role with their current employer changed materially since they signed any restrictive covenants