header-logo header-logo

17 September 2025
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Employment rights ping-pong

MPs voted to reject peers’ amendments to the Employment Rights Bill this week

The House of Lords had proposed measures to dilute the Bill, putting forward an amendment to replace protection from unfair dismissal from the first day of employment with a six-month qualifying period. Peers also wanted to define ‘short notice’ on compensation for shift changes and cancelled work as less than 48 hours.

The landmark Bill aims to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, make flexible working the default, ban ‘fire and rehire’ practices and give employees day-one rights to parental and bereavement leave and protection against unfair dismissal.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll