HR Update - May 2025

May has flown by with the summer tempting us with the warm weather! Although we haven’t had much new information on the hottest topic,  the Labour employment rights bill, we have had plenty of interesting cases to keep us busy and engaged.

As always, if you want to delve into how this might affect you and your business, get in touch! HR is our favourite topic after all.

Employment Updates:

There has been a recent announcement to proposed changes in right to work checks. They are now proposed to include gig economy workers, self-employed, zero hours and contractors. If you have a robust system for right to work checks, this should be an easy change to implement but on the whole, this may result in a higher risk to the business. Each fine remains at up to £60,000 per illegal worker. As always, we will keep you updated when more information is released on this topic but we recommend reviewing your current system and planning ahead on how to combat this change.

The increased costs of National Insurance and Minimum Wage have been implemented since April but the work isn’t done yet. There are reports in some business’ that this has lessened the gap between salary bandings. Why is this important to note? Well, it means that now is the time to review salary benchmarking. Alongside this, this provides an opportunity for businesses to review their bandings, roles and expectations so that a robust argument can be made should someone raise a complaint about their salary band and the lessening gap.

Legal Spotlight: Key ER cases you need to know

Case Update: Islam v Loomis UK Ltd [2025] EAT 49

Loomis UK Ltd faced a major downturn after the pandemic and had to make significant redundancies. The claimant was let go during the second phase of this process after being scored against an agreed criteria and falling below the required threshold. He accepted that redundancies were necessary but claimed his selection was unfair and influenced by his Islamic faith.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) disagreed, finding the redundancy was both fair and properly handled. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ET hadn’t properly applied the rules around the burden of proof under the Equality Act particularly when it came to the stats he said supported his case.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. The EAT said the statistics weren’t strong enough to shift the burden onto the employer and they weren't part of the original complaint.

HR takeaway: This case highlights the importance of having a clear, consistent, and well-documented redundancy process. It also shows that discrimination claims need solid evidence so general stats or assumptions won’t cut it!

Case Update: Hewston v Ofsted [2023] EAT 109

A school inspector was dismissed after lightly brushing water off a rain-soaked child during a school visit. Ofsted saw this as gross misconduct, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed with this.

The EAT found the dismissal was unfair. This was because Mr Hewston hadn’t been told (via policy or training) that even minimal physical contact could lead to dismissal. The wrongful dismissal claim was also sent back to a new tribunal, as it wasn’t clear whether his actions truly amounted to gross misconduct.

HR takeaway: Make sure expectations around conduct, especially what counts as gross misconduct, are clearly set out in policies and training. Even though it may seem straight forward, the “Common sense approach” does not always apply in practice as it is a subjective approach to each individual.  

HR Hot Takes:  Gary Lineker, Social Media, and the Blurred Lines of Personal Expression

May saw Gary Lineker stepping down from his BBC role earlier than expected after a controversial social media post. The former footballer and presenter is facing criticism for a message some interpreted as anti-Semitic, though Lineker insists it was an accident, not malice.

Regardless of intent, the fallout offers yet another case study in the growing tension between personal expression and professional accountability. For HR professionals, it raises an increasingly familiar question: where does an employee’s personal voice end and the employer’s reputation begin?

Social media isn’t just a personal space anymore. Whether high-profile or not, employees are brand ambassadors, intentionally or otherwise. Posts made outside of working hours, from personal accounts, and even those unrelated to the employer’s core values can still have workplace implications. For HR leaders, this incident highlights the tightrope we walk: Freedom of speech vs. organisational values, Intent vs. interpretation, Private citizen vs. public figure.

Managing this isn’t about controlling speech, it’s about setting clear expectations. Policies must evolve to reflect a digital-first reality where visibility is high and nuance is often lost. Some considerations:

• Are your social media guidelines up to date and clearly communicated?
• Do you provide training on tone, context, and cultural sensitivity?
• How does your organisation respond when employee speech attracts attention either positively or negatively?

There’s no easy answer, and that’s what makes this a “hot take.” Critics argue that penalising personal speech creates a chilling effect. Others insist that freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from consequence. What’s clear is this: reputational risk isn’t limited to executives anymore. HR must navigate not just legal compliance, but also moral and cultural expectations.

The Lineker case isn’t isolated, it’s a glimpse into a broader HR reckoning. As employees speak more freely and platforms amplify more loudly, HR’s task is to build a culture that values both authenticity and accountability.

Are your policies ready?

HR Compass: Is your HR Team strategically ready for AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already reshaping how organisations hire, develop, and support their people. From automating recruitment tasks to personalising learning and development pathways, AI is not a distant innovation. For HR leaders, this presents a critical moment: how do we ensure our teams are strategically ready for the AI era?

The first step is knowledge. HR professionals must gain a practical understanding of what AI can and cannot do. This includes familiarising themselves with the technologies being deployed in areas like recruitment screening and predictive analytics. Just as importantly, staying abreast of evolving UK regulations and ethical standards, including GDPR considerations and the EU AI Act, will be key to future-proofing your HR strategy.

Strategic readiness also requires a clear-eyed view of where you stand today. Start by auditing your existing digital tools and capabilities. What AI-enabled systems are already in place? Are your people confident using them? This will reveal both gaps and opportunities.

Upskilling is essential, not just for HR teams but for the wider workforce. From data literacy to ethical understanding, the HR function must lead by example in equipping staff with the knowledge and mindset to work effectively alongside AI.

HR must act as the ethical guardian for AI initiatives. As algorithms take on a greater role in decisions about hiring, promotion, and engagement, the risk of bias and lack of transparency grows. HR leaders should ask for clarity from suppliers about how AI tools work, and actively involve employees in conversations about how their data is used.

AI is a tool, not a replacement for human judgment. A strategic approach means using AI to support and enhance human decision-making, not bypass it. Align AI initiatives with your broader people strategy. Focus on improving employee experience, not just operational efficiency. Set clear goals, track outcomes, and be prepared to adapt.

AI will continue to transform the HR landscape, but the real question is whether HR is ready to lead that transformation. Now is the time to invest in understanding, capabilities, and culture. The organisations that succeed will be those where HR doesn’t just adopt AI, but shapes how it’s used, for people, with people.