Smarter HR solutions for law firms and legal services organisations

It is important as part of a fair and reasonable redundancy procedure for an employer to consider whether it, or any associated employer, has any vacancies that would be suitable for employees who would otherwise be made redundant. There is no obligation on the employer to create new jobs for redundant employees, but failure to offer any available suitable alternative employment may make a dismissal by reason of redundancy unfair.

Where an employee’s contract is renewed, or they are re-engaged under a new contract in pursuance of an offer made before the end of the employment under the previous contract, and the renewal or re-engagement takes effect either immediately on, or within four weeks of, the end of the previous employment, there will be no redundancy dismissal.

In addition to the requirement to consider alternative employment as part of a fair redundancy procedure, employers must comply with the separate duty to offer any suitable alternative vacancy to an employee who is pregnant; on maternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave or neonatal care leave; or recently returned from family leave, when the redundancy occurs.

Where an employee who is subject to disciplinary proceedings is absent due to a short-term illness, the most appropriate course of action is likely to be for the employer to postpone the meeting until the employee is well enough to attend.

If the employee is on long-term sickness absence, the employer must balance the need to avoid unreasonable delay in the process with the importance of allowing the employee to put their case before it makes a decision.

The employer should take steps to determine whether or not the employee is well enough to attend a disciplinary meeting, even though they are not fit for work. If necessary, the employer should obtain medical evidence focused on the employee’s ability to take part in a disciplinary meeting, and what, if any, reasonable adjustments it could make to facilitate their attendance. Adjustments could include holding the meeting online or at a location of their choice, allowing them to be accompanied by a family member or incorporating frequent breaks into the meeting.

If an employee is still unable to attend, the employer should consider putting the disciplinary process on hold until the employee is well enough. In William Hicks & Partners (a firm) v Nadal EAT/0164/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that it will be reasonable for a disciplinary hearing to go ahead in an employee’s absence only in exceptional cases. If a disciplinary hearing takes place resulting in dismissal, and the employee was not in attendance, the employer could face claims for unfair dismissal and, if the employee is disabled, disability discrimination.

Yes, an employer can anonymise witness statements obtained during a grievance or disciplinary procedure. However, while there is no legal requirement to disclose the identity of witnesses, failure to do so undermines the employee’s right to challenge properly the evidence. Employers have an obligation to undertake a fair disciplinary procedure, which will include attempting to obtain reliable, corroborated evidence. The employer should explore the witness’s reasons for wishing to remain anonymous and decide whether or not it should disregard such evidence or consider it as holding less weight than statements from named witnesses.

If anonymous evidence is to be used, the employer should seek to corroborate the evidence and to establish at least one identifiable witness, even if this person is not a direct witness to events, such as a manager who has been provided with information from witnesses. It should consider allowing the employee to formulate written questions to be put to the anonymous witness through the employer. The witness’s answers can then be examined during the disciplinary process.

The employer should make the witness aware that their anonymity cannot be guaranteed. If the matter results in legal proceedings, they may be subject to a witness order requiring their attendance at the tribunal to provide evidence in the proceedings.

The relevant legislation does not address how employers should deal with contractual pay for employees who work a keeping-in-touch day during maternity, adoption or shared parental leave.

The employer could set out the rate of pay for employees working keeping-in-touch days in the employment contract or it may decide it on a discretionary, case-by-case basis, for example depending on the nature of the work carried out. Employers will need to bear in mind their statutory obligations about paying staff, including the requirement to pay the national minimum wage and their responsibility to ensure that women and men receive equal pay for work of equal value.

If an employer decides to pay all employees their full contractual pay on keeping-in-touch days, it should also decide whether or not any statutory pay will be offset against the contractual pay or paid in addition, where the keeping-in-touch day falls in a period when the employee is receiving statutory maternity, paternity or adoption pay. For example, if an employee earns £100 contractual pay for each keeping-in-touch day, with statutory pay offset against this, if they work one keeping-in-touch day during a week in which they are receiving the flat rate of statutory maternity pay (SMP), they will be paid £187.18 for the week. The £187.18 SMP will be offset against the employee’s contractual pay for the week. If they work three keeping-in-touch days during a week, they will be paid £300 for the week. Again, their £187.18 SMP will be offset against their contractual pay for the week.

Employers should bear in mind that there may not be much financial incentive for an employee to work during the leave period if they will earn little or nothing above the statutory pay that they would already have received.

Employers can be held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by employees – even if the event is held off site and out of normal working hours. Under the Equality Act 2010, protection from harassment covers sexual harassment as well as unwanted conduct on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation.

Employers should ensure that their policy on harassment is up to date, and has been brought to the attention of all employees. The employer will have a defence to a claim of harassment if it can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from performing the act. Ensuring that employees are aware of the policy on harassment is a key first step to establishing this defence.

Employers are not currently liable for harassment of employees by third parties, but this is due to change in October 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 provides for employers to be liable for third-party harassment of employees in the course of their employment, where the employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent this.

Employers currently have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees in the course of their employment. This includes prevention of harassment by third parties. This duty will be strengthened by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will require employers to take all reasonable steps. Employers should ensure that they take steps to prevent any harassment of employees, for example when choosing a venue for a social event.