The Employment Rights Act Clock Starts Now

Happy New Year. If you thought 2026 would start quietly, think again. The Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent just last month, and we are already seeing the first wave of implementation.

The controversial Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 has been repealed immediately. For unions, the shackles are off. For employers, the calculus of industrial action has just shifted back to the pre-2023 baseline. We also saw the Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 come into force on December 29th, a compassionate and necessary update ensuring fathers and partners can take leave without service requirements if tragedy strikes during childbirth.

Single-Sex Facilities: The Leonardo Ruling

On January 7, 2026, Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland handed down a significant decision in Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd. The case concerned a female employee's objection to a company policy permitting transgender women to use female toilets.

Significantly, the Tribunal found that while the policy was a Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP) capable of disadvantaging women, it was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Judge Sutherland noted that "a toilet access policy of permitting access based upon asserted gender rather than sex was an appropriate means to achieve the aim of an inclusive workplace environment." The judgment also explicitly attempts to keep terminology consistent with the Supreme Court's For Women Scotland (FWS) decision.

However, this is not a blank cheque. In a nuanced parallel finding, the Tribunal did uphold specific harassment complaints where the dignity of the claimant was violated. This underscores that while inclusive policies are lawful, their implementation and the workplace culture surrounding them remain a minefield for liability under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

Anonymity Requires Evidence

Finally, a practice note from the EAT in DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service ([2025] EAT 147). The Tribunal was held to be wrong to refuse a claimant's anonymity order without allowing them time to obtain medical evidence.

We often see anonymity applications treated as administrative afterthoughts. This judgment confirms that they are substantive applications requiring proper evidential footing. If you are applying for Rule 50 protection based on medical grounds, the Tribunal must give you a fair shot at proving it.

The Outlook

February brings the next tranche of changes to trade union activities. I'll be breaking those down as the regulations are finalised.

Links