The Employment Rights Act Clock Starts Now

Happy New Year. 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The controversial Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 has been repealed immediately.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

In a judgment sent to the parties on 24 November 2025, Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland decided Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd Case No: 8001497/2024. The case concerned a female employee's objection to a company policy permitting transgender women to use female toilets.

The Tribunal dismissed every complaint. Indirect sex discrimination failed at the first stage: there was no reasonable basis for concluding that the policy put female staff, or the claimant herself, at the particular disadvantage alleged [347], [353]. Justification was decided only in the alternative, where Judge Sutherland found 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" [367] and that the policy was proportionate [380]. The judgment keeps its terminology consistent with the Supreme Court's For Women Scotland (FWS) decision [5].

Harassment failed too. Operating the policy was unwanted conduct related to sex, but it did not have the effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment for her [297]: the Tribunal's reason was that the policy had no practical effect on her [294]. This is a first-instance decision on one claimant's evidence. It binds no one.

Corrected, October 2026: the original version of this section made two statements the judgment does not support: that the policy was found capable of disadvantaging women but justified; that some harassment complaints were upheld.

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