In this newsletter we look at legislation changes, case law judgements, Neurodiversity in the workplace, and other elements.

We hope you find this information helpful, if you would like more detail on any aspect please contact us.  Don’t forget to take a look at our website to see the full range of our services.

From basic Contracts of Employment to a fully Outsourced HR service we can help.  If you would like to know more about any of our support, consultancy, and training services, and see how we can help you, please visit our website or contact us at info@connectivebusiness.co.uk to arrange a Free no-obligation consultation.

Legislation Updates

New protections for victims of crime

From 1 October 2025 the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (VPA) will come into force across England and Wales.  The VPA gives more support to victims of crime and in some respects puts existing common law into legislation. In workplaces, this will reaffirm (and in some ways extend) the rights of employees:

• The VPA applies to NDAs, confidentiality clauses in contracts and settlement agreements. For ease, the following information will use ‘NDA’ to encompass all of these areas.
• Any NDA signed on or after October 1 2025 will not be enforceable against people who are victims of crime (or who reasonably believe they are) when they report relevant conduct about the alleged crime to specified persons or authorities.
• Currently, even where an NDA is in place, a person can inform prescribed bodies about criminal activity and make protected disclosures (i.e. whistleblowing, or about health and safety risk, or regulatory breaches). The VPA reaffirms that this criminal activity can be disclosed, and it also uses the term “criminal conduct” to broaden the possible disclosures that may be considered. For example, “criminal conduct” would include theft, data protection breaches or concerns about forced labour.
• Currently, the list of prescribed bodies for whistleblowing purposes is based on a fixed list set out in the legislation, although other appropriate bodies may be added to the list due to tribunal or court decisions in specific victims of crime cases.  The VPA updates this by affirming that disclosures can also be made to victim support services, a person authorised to receive information on behalf of a prescribed body or a close family member.

Case Law Updates

Former executive awarded nearly £70,000 after an Employment Tribunal (ET) found he was unfairly dismissed.

JT was dismissed without notice after he was accused of sexual harassment, touching a female colleague inappropriately and putting his fingers in her mouth at a pub.  Police found no evidence of the alleged assault.

However, the ET criticised the company’s internal investigation into the incident, highlighting the lack of effort to secure CCTV footage and noting that police found no ‘clear evidence’. The ET stated the key issue is the failure to try to obtain the CCTV and take reasonable steps to review it, and the general approach taken to interviewing only enough witnesses to support the complainant’s case without any real regard for the possibility of looking for evidence to exonerate, renders this dismissal unfair.  The investigation was “not satisfactory” and that “the disciplinary hearing manager did not challenge the evidence enough”.  The ET was also particularly critical of the fact that the claimant’s line manager was appointed to conduct the investigation when he was found not to be fully impartial.

JT succeeded in his claims of unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment, notice and holiday pay. In a remedy hearing, he was awarded £68,065.29 in compensation.

This case highlights the importance for employers to carry out a thorough and fair investigation to avoid the risk that a dismissal will be found unfair, especially when the allegations are of a serious nature.

CCTV security officer awarded £20k for unfair dismissal after falling asleep at work

A CCTV security officer who fell asleep for 15 minutes while on duty has been awarded more than £20,000 in compensation after an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled his dismissal was unfair.

The ET heard that CO, who had spent 16 years working for cleaning, security and facilities services company Bidvest Noonan, claimed he was not asleep but was instead “meditating” and “thinking” while looking away from the monitors to alleviate discomfort from dry eyes.  Despite his long service, the company treated the incident as gross misconduct. However, the ET ruled that the dismissal was outside the “band of reasonable responses”, ruling that a final written warning would have been a more fitting response given that CO’s actions were unintentional.  The ET stated “It seems to us that the seriousness of falling asleep on the job is something that very much depends upon its context.”

CO succeeded in his claims for both unfair and wrongful dismissal. In a remedy hearing, he was awarded £20,521 in compensation, which included £5,138 for damages of breach of contract in respect of notice, a basic award of £5,210 and compensation for financial losses of £10,172. CO was also ordered to pay Bidvest Noonan £4,030 in costs.

In this case, the ET found that the employer undertook a fair investigation and genuinely believed CO had fallen asleep.  Unfortunately, that is not enough when it comes to the dismissal being fair.  Context when considering the misconduct itself is key to establishing whether it would be reasonable to dismiss, rather than issue a warning or lesser sanction.  The ET found arguments for and against dismissal, with the key points being:

• CO had been asleep for a short period of time;
• he was understandably tired after he had undertaken multiple consecutive night shifts;
• he fell asleep at around 5am when the shopping centre he was providing security for was closed and securely locked, minimising risk to the public and employer;
• his long length of employment service with no previous disciplinary record.

Had the context been that CO had intentionally snuck off to sleep in defiance of his duties, that he was asleep when the shopping centre was open, and / or there was an incident that caused damage to the employer’s relationship with the shopping centre because he was asleep, dismissal may have been more likely a fair response.

Training

Operational Managers are key to a Company’s success, and how they work with and manage their teams is an essential part of this.  Failing to provide them with the essential training they require will lead to more issues within the workplace.

We run a number of ‘1 to 1 HR Coaching for Managers’ modules, all of which are delivered remotely via Microsoft Teams:

• Being an Effective Manager / Responsibilities of a Manager;
• Dealing with Misconduct (Discipline), Poor Performance (Capability) and Grievances;
• Managing Attendance / Sickness Absence;
• Managing Performance / Developing People;
• Dealing With Conflict;
• Managing Recruitment;
• Managing Investigations.

Each module is focussed on the key elements involved, and takes around 1½ hours, with Managers also completing a workbook containing a number of questions and scenarios which is then analysed and feedback provided to ensure an in-depth understanding of the subject(s).

More details on all of the above can be found on our website.

Neurodiversity in the workplace

Neurodiversity is a term used to describe the natural variations in the way the brain works. It is estimated that around 1 in 7 people are neurodivergent, with common examples including autism, ADHD and dyslexia.

There is no employment legislation that addresses neurodiversity specifically, and neurodiversity affects individuals differently.  Some neurodivergent employees may be classed as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, even if they do not consider themselves to be disabled.  As such, employers must be aware they could face other disability discrimination claims if they treat a neurodivergent employee less favourably because of their condition.

Employers should review their processes to ensure they are neuroinclusive.  For example, with a recruitment process some neurodivergent employees may benefit from receiving interview questions in advance or providing written answers instead of oral responses.  In the case of AECOM v Mallon, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a decision that an employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to allow a job applicant to make his application orally rather than through an online form, because his dyspraxia made it difficult for him to express his thoughts in writing.

Employers should consider a number of aspects including:

• take steps to ensure employees feel comfortable discussing neurodiversity;
• highlight support available.
• provide specific training, particularly to managers;
• run awareness campaigns;
• consider creating a staff network, which allows neurodivergent individuals to connect and support one another.

ACAS have produced helpful guidance on this subject which can be found at https://www.acas.org.uk/neurodiversity-at-work

Partner Services

We have long-term partnerships with key providers which enables us to provide other recommended services to our clients.

Our partnerships include:

• Financial Services;
• Legal Services via Howells Solicitors;
• Health Insurance and Staff Healthcare Benefits via Western Provident Association (WPA);
• Health and Safety via Sure Safety;
• Workplace Wellbeing via Wellfinite;
• Cloud based HR Software via WorkSmarter.

Visit our website to see full information on our partners and their services.