HR Update - March 2025 - Culture, Compliance and cutting through the ESG noise

As winter gives way to spring and the days begin to lengthen, the season of renewal and fresh starts is upon us. Just as nature awakens to new life, so too does the world of employment law, with significant changes on the horizon. The Employment Rights Bill represents a fresh approach to workplace protections, with reforms designed to breathe new life into employee rights across the UK.

In a time of transition, it’s essential to consider how these changes will affect your workforce and business. How can we adapt to new regulations and continue fostering an environment where both employers and employees can thrive?

Enjoy the read— as ever, don’t hesitate to reach out for support if you need it.

Unlocking Employment Law: What’s Changing & Why It Matters

The balance of free speech and workplace respect: Lessons from the University of Sussex case

When it comes to free speech in the workplace, things can quickly become complicated. A recent ruling against the University of Sussex has thrown a spotlight on the tricky intersection of academic freedom, personal beliefs, and workplace conduct. The case, which saw the university fined £585,000 for failing to protect a professor’s freedom of speech, raises important questions for all employers about how to navigate the fine line between freedom of expression and maintaining a respectful, inclusive workplace.

Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, resigned after facing protests and backlash from students who disagreed with her gender-critical views. The case sparked an investigation by the Office for Students (OfS), which found that the university’s handling of the situation led to a “chilling effect” on free speech, where staff and students felt unable to express lawful views for fear of backlash. While Stock’s views were lawful, her treatment highlighted the importance of ensuring that employees feel safe to express differing opinions without fear of retaliation or harassment.

But what does this mean for employers? Can we protect employees’ rights to express unpopular opinions while ensuring that our workplaces remain safe and inclusive? There’s no simple answer. Freedom of speech is protected by law, but when it crosses into harmful territory—such as discrimination, harassment, or creating a toxic work environment—it becomes a legal risk. The challenge is finding a way to balance diverse views while safeguarding employees from harm.

So, what can HR/employers do to navigate this? It starts with having clear policies in place. While employees have a right to free speech, they also have a right to work in an environment free from discrimination. Make sure your organisation’s policies on respect, inclusion, and behaviour are updated, clear, and communicated to all employees. Providing training on these issues is also crucial, especially as the freedom of speech debate continues to evolve. Be proactive about creating a culture that encourages respectful dialogue and protects those who might feel vulnerable.

New Neonatal leave supporting parents of premature and sick babies

The UK government has now introduced Neonatal Leave and Pay, a new statutory right designed to support parents of babies who require neonatal care. Effective from April 2025, this entitlement allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave in addition to their existing parental leave. This applies when a baby spends at least seven consecutive days in neonatal care within the first 28 days of life. The aim is to provide parents with the flexibility and financial security needed during this critical time without the added pressure of using maternity, paternity, or annual leave. Clients of HRP will receive their updated policy imminently.

Legal Spotlight: Key ER Cases You Need to Know

Toure v HMRC (2025) – Unwanted Birthday Card Leads to £25K Harassment Award

In a recent case, Toure v HMRC (2025), the tribunal ruled that a birthday card sent to an employee on sick leave, despite her request for minimal contact, contributed to a "hostile and intimidating environment" and amounted to harassment related to her disability. Toure, who was on leave for work-related stress exacerbated by a pituitary gland tumour, had asked for minimal contact but was contacted 11 times over three weeks. The tribunal awarded her £25,251.62 in compensation. HMRC defended their actions by stating they had a duty of care, but the tribunal found they should have respected her wishes.

This case reinforces the need for employers to ensure clear communication with employees on sick leave and respect any boundaries set by the employee.

Booth v Ocorian Services UK (2025) – Boss’s paternity leave joke leads to victimisation claim win

In Booth v Ocorian Services UK (2025), an executive was dismissed after filing a grievance about his manager’s inappropriate remarks, including a joke that a male colleague on paternity leave was "off to grow a pair of t*ts." The tribunal found Booth had been victimised for raising concerns about sexism and workplace culture, leading to less favourable exit terms.

The panel ruled that the comments constituted unwanted conduct related to sex, creating an offensive environment. It also found Booth’s severance package was intentionally reduced as a direct result of his complaints. Ocorian admitted to unfair dismissal, and Booth succeeded in his victimisation and harassment claims.

This case highlights the risks of retaliatory action against employees who raise legitimate grievances and reinforces the need for fair treatment in exit negotiations.

Sharma v Jaguar Land Rover (2025) – Tribunal rules name confusion can be race discrimination

In Sharma v Jaguar Land Rover (2025), the employment tribunal ruled that mistakenly calling an employee by the name of a colleague of the same ethnicity can amount to race discrimination. Abhinav Sharma, an Indian engineer, was referred to by a white colleague as “Bhuv,” the name of another Indian colleague. The tribunal found no reasonable basis for mistaken identity, as the two men had different builds, accents, and appearances.

The panel concluded that such errors could make individuals feel “lumped together as a group rather than treated individually” and were unlikely to occur with white colleagues. Additionally, the tribunal found that Sharma was discouraged from pursuing a grievance and was subjected to unfavourable treatment after raising concerns about discrimination.

This case highlights the importance of recognising microaggressions in the workplace and ensuring robust processes for handling discrimination complaints fairly.

HR Hot Takes: What's Sparking Discussion in HR

Discrimination, leadership, and the cost of misjudgements

Workplace culture and leadership accountability are dominating HR conversations this month. Two high-profile cases—one involving a landmark tribunal ruling and the other resulting in the resignation of a retail giant’s CEO—highlight the consequences of organisational failures in handling discrimination and misconduct. These cases serve as stark reminders that mismanagement of workplace issues carries both financial and reputational risks.

Discrimination cases are nothing new, but the recent £1.1 million tribunal ruling in favour of Professor Roya Sheikholeslami underscores the damage that mishandling such concerns can cause. The University of Edinburgh’s failure to address gender discrimination claims-despite commissioning a report confirming the issue , led to years of legal battles, reputational harm and significant financial loss.

The case demonstrates the importance of not only having diversity and inclusion policies but actively enforcing them. Reports of a workplace culture where female professors were viewed as "positive discrimination" hires highlight the systemic challenges women still face in male-dominated fields. HR leaders must take proactive steps to create environments where all employees feel valued and supported.

In the private sector, Primark’s CEO Paul Marchant resigned after an investigation into allegations of misconduct in a social setting. While details remain limited, his departure highlights the growing scrutiny on leadership behaviour and the necessity for companies to uphold ethical standards, regardless of position.

ABF, Primark’s parent company, reaffirmed its commitment to integrity, stating, “Our culture has to be, and is, bigger than any one individual.” This echoes a broader trend- organisations must prioritise ethics and accountability over individual leadership tenure.

Ignoring grievances, mishandling complaints, or retaliating against employees can lead to severe legal, financial, and cultural repercussions. Discrimination cases not only impact employee well-being but also expose organisations to costly legal action. Workplace misconduct (whether in the office or social settings) can damage reputations, making clear behavioural expectations essential. This is underpinned by Oct 24’s new legal requirements in the sphere of sexual harassment. Past investigations must be handled thoroughly to prevent future fallout, and swift, transparent crisis responses are critical in maintaining trust and integrity. Both these cases highlight that HR isn’t just about policy-it’s about culture, trust, and accountability. Whether it’s tackling discrimination or ensuring leadership integrity, the cost of getting it wrong is higher than ever. 

The HR Compass: Navigating the Future of Work

ESG: Talk is Cheap – Employees Want Action

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) commitments have moved from corporate niceties to business imperatives. Yet, employees aren’t convinced that organisations are walking the talk. A recent report (the latest Jobs Confidence Index from Robert Half and the Centre for Economics and Business Research), found that 56% of workers believe their employer’s ESG efforts are purely for show, while 61% say businesses must do more.

The disconnect between what organisations say and what they do is becoming a major red flag especially for younger workers. Research shows that 90% of Gen Z job seekers refuse to apply for roles at companies that neglect diversity and well-being, and nearly a third (32%) of all UK workers would leave a job if their employer’s ESG values didn’t align with their own. Among younger employees (18-34), this number jumps to 43%. Employers who fail to take ESG seriously aren’t just risking reputational damage- they’re actively driving away talent.

One of the biggest problems is performative ESG where companies talk a big game about sustainability, diversity, and inclusion but fail to back it up with real change. Employees can see through surface-level commitments, especially when ESG initiatives are treated as a box-ticking exercise rather than a core part of company culture.

There’s also growing scepticism about ESG reporting. Some of the world’s biggest polluters still rank highly in ESG ratings, raising concerns that the frameworks used to assess environmental and social impact are flawed. If employees feel that ESG is more about PR than real impact, their trust in leadership erodes, affecting engagement, retention, and overall morale.

HR plays a crucial role in closing the ESG perception gap. It’s not just about policies; it’s about embedding ESG into the everyday employee experience. Employees need to see tangible progress on ESG initiatives. That means transparent reporting, clear goals, and a commitment to continuous improvement. If your organisation claims to prioritise sustainability, ensure that business operations reflect this. If inclusion is a core value, leadership must actively champion diverse talent and create equitable opportunities. Listen to employee expectations- Employees, especially younger generations,want workplaces that align with their values. Regularly gathering employee feedback on ESG priorities can help businesses shape meaningful policies. Organisations that fail to engage employees in these conversations risk losing their trust. Prioritising ethical leadership is key. The recent wave of high-profile leadership resignations linked to ESG failures shows that employees expect more from those at the top. Leaders set the tone, and HR must ensure that they uphold the organisation’s ethical and social commitments. A strong culture of accountability starts with leadership walking the talk.

With Gen Z actively avoiding companies that neglect ESG values, organisations must embed sustainability, inclusion, and ethical governance into their employer brand. ESG isn’t just a corporate responsibility- it’s a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining top talent. This is something Jackson Hogg have a lot of experience and understanding in and myself and Charlie Muzzlewhite recently spoke on the topic of Gen Z recruitment and retention at an Engineering and Manufacturing Network event. ESG is no longer a ‘nice-to-have’- it’s a make-or-break factor for employees, job seekers, and investors alike. HR has a crucial role to play in ensuring that ESG commitments are more than just words on a website. The companies that win in the future of work will be those that prioritise people, planet, and profit—not just for the headlines, but for real, lasting impact.

Is your ESG strategy built to last, or are employees seeing right through it?