Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin

Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin I have been specialising in employment law in the UK (except Northern Ireland) since January 2015.

I represent employees and employers from initial negotiations, through the entire legal process, to the hearing in the Employment Tribunal.

"I Have Cancer. Will the Employment Tribunal Automatically Protect My Identity?"Unfortunately, the answer is often no.An...
09/07/2026

"I Have Cancer. Will the Employment Tribunal Automatically Protect My Identity?"

Unfortunately, the answer is often no.

An anonymity order is a mechanism that allows the Employment Tribunal to protect the identity of a person involved in proceedings.

In practice, this usually means that instead of publishing a party's full name in the judgment and other publicly available documents, the Tribunal identifies them by their initials or another anonymised reference.

Importantly, an anonymity order does not mean that the hearing is held in private or that the judgment is kept secret.

Many people assume that if their case involves a serious illness or highly sensitive medical information, anonymity will be granted automatically.

Unfortunately, obtaining an anonymity order is far more difficult than most people realise.

What is an anonymity order?

Since January 2025, anonymity orders in the Employment Tribunal have been governed by Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The Tribunal may make an anonymity order where it considers it necessary:

• in the interests of justice; or
• to protect a person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to respect for private life under Article 8.

Most commonly, this means replacing a party's name with initials in judgments and other publicly available documents.

Open justice comes first

Many claimants assume that because their case concerns their health, the Tribunal will automatically protect their identity.

That is not the starting point.

Employment Tribunal proceedings are governed by the principle of open justice.

This means that, as a general rule:

• hearings are public;
• judgments are published; and
• the public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is involved in court proceedings and why.

For that reason, anonymity is the exception, not the rule.

When deciding whether to grant an anonymity order, the Tribunal must balance an individual's right to privacy under Article 8 against the principle of open justice and freedom of expression under Article 10.

How does this work in practice?

Applications for anonymity most commonly arise in cases involving:

• serious medical conditions;
• mental health issues;
• disability discrimination;
• allegations of sexual misconduct or abuse; and
• other highly sensitive aspects of a person's private life.

However, the existence of sensitive medical evidence does not automatically justify anonymity.

Even where a Tribunal will hear detailed evidence about intimate medical treatment or long-term health conditions, it will still ask whether restricting open justice is genuinely necessary and proportionate.

When is anonymity more likely to be granted?

Every case turns on its own facts.

However, anonymity is generally more likely where identifying an individual could result in particularly serious consequences, for example:

• cases involving sexual offences or sexual abuse;
• children or especially vulnerable individuals;
• genuine risks to personal safety;
• exceptional psychiatric evidence demonstrating a real risk of significant harm; or
• other truly exceptional circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal will always ask whether the individual's right to privacy outweighs the strong public interest in open justice.

What does this mean for employees?

If you are considering bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal that involves your health, it is worth discussing anonymity with your solicitor.

However, it is important to understand that:

The fact that you have a serious medical condition - even cancer - does not automatically mean that the Tribunal will protect your identity.

Each application is considered on its own merits, and the person seeking anonymity must persuade the Tribunal that restricting open justice is both necessary and proportionate.

Final thoughts

Anonymity orders remain an important safeguard where they are genuinely justified.

However, in practice they are granted relatively rarely because the Tribunal starts from a strong presumption in favour of open justice.

Even cases involving cancer or highly personal medical information will not automatically meet the legal threshold.

That does not mean such applications should never be made. In many cases they are entirely appropriate.

What it does mean is that applicants should be aware that the threshold is high, and that the Tribunal will only depart from the principle of open justice where there is a compelling reason to do so.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Working During a Heatwave – How to Protect Health and Ensure Safety at WorkHeatwaves are becoming increasingly common in...
25/06/2026

Working During a Heatwave – How to Protect Health and Ensure Safety at Work

Heatwaves are becoming increasingly common in the UK, and high temperatures can significantly affect both health and workplace safety. For employers, this means taking proactive steps to ensure safe working conditions. For employees, it means understanding their rights and knowing how to protect themselves. Working in extreme heat is not just uncomfortable — it can be dangerous, and both sides have responsibilities.

Why High Temperatures Are a Risk

Excessive heat can cause dehydration, heat exhaustion, fainting, and in severe cases, heatstroke. Concentration drops, reaction times slow down, and the risk of accidents increases. People working outdoors, performing physical tasks, or working in poorly ventilated spaces are particularly vulnerable. Even healthy individuals can quickly become unwell in high temperatures, and symptoms of overheating often appear suddenly.

Employer Responsibilities During Hot Weather

Although UK law does not set a maximum workplace temperature, health and safety regulations require employers to provide conditions that do not endanger workers. This means employers must act when heat becomes uncomfortable or unsafe.

Employers should ensure access to cold drinking water, adequate ventilation, blinds or shading, and consider adjusting work patterns — for example, introducing more frequent breaks, shortening shifts, or scheduling the most demanding tasks for cooler parts of the day. Outdoor work requires additional precautions, such as providing shade and limiting exposure to direct sunlight. Every employer should also carry out a risk assessment that takes temperature and the nature of the work into account.

Employee Rights and Safe Working Practices

Employees have the right to raise concerns about excessive heat, request additional breaks, or ask for adjustments to their duties if the temperature affects their health. If conditions pose a serious and immediate danger, workers may refuse to continue working until the risk is addressed.

To stay safe, employees should drink water regularly, take short breaks, wear light and breathable clothing, and report any symptoms of overheating — such as dizziness, nausea, or weakness. Those working outdoors should also use sunscreen and avoid direct sun exposure during the hottest hours of the day.

When Work Should Be Stopped

If an employer cannot provide basic safety measures — for example, there is no ventilation, no access to water, or temperatures reach levels that pose a health risk — work should be reduced or temporarily halted. Protecting workers’ health must always come first, and ignoring heat-related risks can lead to serious health issues and legal consequences.

Summary

Heatwaves are more than an inconvenience; they are a genuine health hazard. Employers must take steps to ensure safe working conditions, and employees have the right to expect a safe environment. Proper organisation, access to water, regular breaks, and awareness of heat-related risks can significantly reduce the danger and help everyone stay safe during hot weather.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim in the UK: What You Need to KnowBeing dismissed, experiencing discrimination, or d...
12/06/2026

Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim in the UK: What You Need to Know

Being dismissed, experiencing discrimination, or dealing with unpaid wages or workplace issues can leave employees wondering whether they should bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal.

For many people, the idea of legal proceedings can seem daunting and confusing. In reality, however, Employment Tribunal claims follow a fairly structured process. Understanding what to
expect can make the whole experience much less overwhelming.

What types of claims can the Employment Tribunal deal with?

The Employment Tribunal deals with disputes relating to employment rights, including:

• Unfair dismissal;
• Discrimination;
• Harassment and victimisation;
• Whistleblowing claims;
• Unpaid wages or holiday pay;
• Redundancy-related claims;
• Certain claims arising from the termination of employment.

Not every workplace dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and some claims may need to be pursued in the civil courts instead. It is therefore important to establish at an early stage whether the Employment Tribunal is the correct forum for your claim.

Does every employee have the same rights?

Not necessarily.

For example, ordinary unfair dismissal claims generally require at least two years' continuous service. However, there are important exceptions.

By contrast, there is no qualifying period of employment for claims involving:

• Discrimination;
• Whistleblowing;
• Harassment;
• Victimisation; or
• Equal pay.

This means that even employees with relatively short service may have valuable legal rights and potentially strong claims.

ACAS Early Conciliation – the first step

Before most Employment Tribunal claims can be issued, it is necessary to go through ACAS Early Conciliation.

This is a free process designed to help employees and employers resolve disputes without the need for legal proceedings.

Many cases are settled at this stage.

If no agreement is reached, ACAS will issue an Early Conciliation Certificate, which enables the claim to proceed to the Employment Tribunal.

Time limits are crucial

One of the most common mistakes employees make is waiting too long before taking action.

In most cases, claims must be brought within three months of the relevant event. Different time limits apply to certain claims, but the general rule remains the same – delay can be fatal to your case.

Claims brought out of time are frequently rejected by the Tribunal.

How does a claim begin?

An Employment Tribunal claim is started by submitting a form known as an ET1.

The claim form contains:

• details of the parties;
• the legal claims being brought;
• a summary of the relevant facts; and
• the ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate number.

Although detailed evidence is provided later in the proceedings, it is important to ensure that the claims are properly identified and drafted from the outset. Adding new claims later can be difficult and, in some cases, impossible.

What happens after the claim is submitted?

Once the claim has been lodged, the employer usually has 28 days to submit its response, known as an ET3.

The Employment Tribunal will then issue case management orders setting out the steps that both parties must follow. These commonly include:

• disclosure of documents;
• preparation of the hearing bundle;
• exchange of witness statements;
• preparation of a Schedule of Loss; and
• listing of a Preliminary Hearing where appropriate.

More complex cases, particularly those involving discrimination or whistleblowing, often involve one or more Preliminary Hearings before the final hearing takes place.

What evidence should you keep?

If you are considering bringing a claim, it is important to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, including:

• emails;
• text messages and WhatsApp messages;
• letters and correspondence;
• meeting notes;
• medical records;
• payslips; and
• your contract of employment.

It is also good practice to keep a contemporaneous record of significant conversations and events, including dates and details.

Can claims be settled?

Yes.

In fact, many Employment Tribunal claims settle without the need for a full hearing.

Settlement can be achieved:

• directly between the parties;
• through ACAS using a COT3 agreement; or
• by way of a Settlement Agreement.

Settlement often enables both parties to avoid the uncertainty, stress and expense associated with lengthy litigation.

Will you have to pay the employer's legal costs if you lose?

Unlike the civil courts, the Employment Tribunal generally operates on the basis that each party bears its own legal costs.

Orders requiring one party to pay the other's costs are relatively rare and are usually reserved for cases involving unreasonable conduct or failure to comply with Tribunal orders.

How long does the process take?

Employment Tribunal proceedings rarely conclude quickly.
From the date the claim is issued to the final hearing, it is not uncommon for the process to take more than a year. In more complex cases, it may take even longer.

For this reason, many claims settle before reaching a final hearing.

Need advice?

Every case is different. Whether you have a claim, the strength of your case and the steps you should take will depend on your individual circumstances.

If you believe your employment rights have been breached, or if you simply want to understand your options, I would be happy to help.

After reviewing your circumstances, I can advise you on the strengths and weaknesses of your case and discuss the most appropriate way forward.

Early legal advice can often make a significant difference to the outcome of a case.

If you would like to discuss your situation or arrange a consultation, please feel free to get in touch. I would be pleased to help you understand your rights and the options available to you - [email protected] and Whatsapp 020 7036 1900

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Late Claims and Late Arguments – an Important Lesson from Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation TrustWha...
17/05/2026

Late Claims and Late Arguments – an Important Lesson from Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

What was the case about?

In Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 64, the Employment Appeal Tribunal reminded parties of one of the harshest realities of Employment Tribunal litigation – even a potentially strong argument will not assist a claimant if it was not properly raised before the Employment Tribunal in the first place.

In reality, the case was not primarily about whether the claimant had actually been unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. The central issue was limitation and the way the claims had been presented. The Tribunal considered two types of claims: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In both cases, the Tribunal concluded that the claims had been brought too late.

What happened in practice?

The claimant was employed by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as a healthcare assistant from 4 July 2009 until 8 June 2022. She was dismissed following an absence management procedure during which the employer concluded that she was no longer medically fit to continue in her role. On 22 June 2022, she submitted an internal appeal against her dismissal, and the appeal hearing eventually took place on 18 November 2022. One day later, on 19 November 2022, she was informed that the appeal had been unsuccessful. The claimant then presented Employment Tribunal claims on 10 and 12 January 2023, bringing claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The difficulty was that, under Employment Tribunal rules, both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims generally must be brought within 3 months less one day from the relevant act complained of. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the limitation deadline expired on 7 September 2022. The claimant only started ACAS Early Conciliation on 29 November 2022 and submitted her ET1 in January 2023 – more than four months after the primary limitation deadline had already passed.

For unfair dismissal claims, the Tribunal may only extend time where it was “not reasonably practicable” to bring the claim earlier. For discrimination claims, the Tribunal applies the broader “just and equitable” test. However, in this case, the Tribunal concluded that there was no proper basis to extend time under either test.

Why did the appeal fail?

In relation to unfair dismissal, the Tribunal concluded that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time, meaning there was no basis to extend the limitation period. In relation to disability discrimination, the Tribunal decided that it would not be “just and equitable” to extend time. As a result, both claims failed entirely on procedural grounds before the Tribunal even considered the substantive merits of the allegations.

The claimant later appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. She argued, among other things, that the delay had been caused by the internal appeal process. She also argued that the rejection of her appeal itself amounted to a further discriminatory act and therefore formed part of a “continuing act” of discrimination extending into November 2022.

The EAT rejected those arguments very quickly. The reason was simple: those points had never properly been raised before the Employment Tribunal. They were not clearly pleaded in the ET1, were not properly argued, and were not supported by the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.

Why is this judgment so important?

This judgment is a very important warning for employees pursuing grievances or internal appeals with their employer. In practice, many employees mistakenly assume that limitation deadlines “pause” while an internal process is ongoing. That is not how Employment Tribunal limitation works. In most situations, time continues to run regardless of whether an internal grievance or appeal is still ongoing. Simply pursuing an appeal does not automatically extend the deadline for bringing Tribunal proceedings.

In practice, I regularly encounter situations where clients seek legal advice only after their claims are already out of time – sometimes by a year or more. Quite often, these cases may appear strong on the merits. Clients understandably try to persuade me that because they suffered obvious unfairness or discrimination, the Tribunal will surely still hear the case despite the delay. Unfortunately, Employment Tribunal litigation does not work that way.

Limitation is one of the most important procedural issues in employment law. Even a very strong claim can collapse at the very beginning simply because it was brought too late. From the perspective of firms operating on a no win no fee basis, this also creates a major practical problem, because the risk of a claim being dismissed as out of time will often automatically prevent representation being offered under a conditional fee arrangement.

Conclusion

The Ndow case highlights a brutal but very real aspect of Employment Tribunal litigation. Sometimes claimants do not lose because their case is weak on the facts. They lose because the arguments were not properly prepared, pleaded and advanced at the correct stage – or because they sought advice too late.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Changes to Employment Law in the UK from April 2026From April 2026, further changes to employment law will come into for...
27/03/2026

Changes to Employment Law in the UK from April 2026

From April 2026, further changes to employment law will come into force in the United Kingdom as part of the wider reform introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. This reform is being implemented over several years, but even at this stage the direction is clear – increased protection for employees and improved access to basic employment rights.

Below are the key changes.

1. Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) – a practical and significant change

Changes to statutory sick pay are among the most noticeable in everyday working life.

From 6 April 2026:
• SSP is payable from the first day of sickness (the “waiting days” are removed),
• the Lower Earnings Limit is abolished,
• SSP is set at £123.25 per week or 80% of normal weekly earnings (whichever is lower).

What does this mean in practice?

Previously, many individuals:
• received no pay for the first few days of sickness, or
• did not qualify for SSP at all (for example, due to low earnings).

Following these changes:
• almost all workers will qualify for SSP,
• financial support will begin immediately, rather than after a delay.

This is particularly important for those working in low-paid roles, part-time positions, or irregular hours.

2. Paternity leave – a full “day one” right

From 6 April 2026, paternity leave becomes a right available from the first day of employment.

Key changes:
• removal of the 26-week qualifying period,
• the ability to take paternity leave even after using Shared Parental Leave,
• additional rights for partners in specific circumstances (for example, where the child’s mother dies).

Why is this important?

In practice:
• newly hired employees no longer need to “wait” to qualify,
• the right becomes more flexible and better aligned with real family situations.

This represents a broader shift in approach – employment rights are no longer tied to length of service, but treated as fundamental entitlements.

3. Parental leave – removal of the service requirement

A similar change applies to parental leave.

From April 2026:
• parental leave becomes a “day one” right,
• the previous requirement of one year’s service is removed.

What remains unchanged?
• entitlement of up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave per child,
• leave can be taken up until the child turns 18.

Practical impact

This is particularly relevant for:
• employees changing jobs,
• individuals with short service,
• parents returning to the workforce.

Previously, changing jobs often meant losing eligibility – this issue is now resolved.

4. Increase in the National Minimum Wage

From 1 April 2026, the National Minimum Wage rates increase:
• £12.71 per hour – for workers aged 21 and over,
• £10.85 – for those aged 18–20,
• £8.00 – for those aged 16–17 and apprentices.

What does this mean?
• a direct increase in earnings for workers,
• increased cost pressure on employers.

While this is clearly positive for employees, it may also lead to indirect effects on the labour market.

5. Direction of reform – more “day one” rights

All of the above changes reflect a clear trend: moving away from linking employment rights to length of service.

Instead:
• key rights (such as leave and basic protections) are available from the start of employment,
• the system becomes more employee-focused.

At the same time, it is important to note that:
• the reform is being introduced in stages,
• further significant changes (such as unfair dismissal and zero-hours contracts) are expected in 2027.

Summary

The changes coming into force in April 2026 are not a complete overhaul overnight, but they represent a significant step towards reshaping employment law in the UK.

The key points are:
• SSP available from the first day of sickness,
• paternity and parental leave from day one of employment,
• an increase in the National Minimum Wage,
• an overall shift towards stronger employee protection.

In practice, this means a system that is more accessible and predictable for employees, while placing greater obligations on employers.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

21/03/2026

Employment Tribunal Time Limits – Why You Can Lose Your Case Before It Even Starts

In employment law, most people focus on what actually happened: whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the employer acted unlawfully, whether there are witnesses or documents.

In practice, however, something much simpler — and much more unforgiving — often decides the outcome.

Not who is right.

Not who tells the truth.

👉 But whether you acted in time.

It is entirely possible to have a strong case in the Employment Tribunal and still lose it at the very first stage — simply because the claim was brought too late.

📌 A short deadline that decides everything

In most employment claims, the rule is:

👉 3 months minus 1 day from the relevant act

This applies to claims such as:
• unfair dismissal
• unlawful deductions from wages
• breach of contract

So if something happened on 1 January, the deadline would normally be 31 March

On the surface, that seems straightforward.

But very quickly a critical question arises:

👉 what exactly is “the relevant act”?

⚠️ The Tribunal will not “forgive” delay

Many people assume that if their case is strong, the Tribunal will still consider it. That is not how the system works.

If a claim is presented outside the time limit, the Tribunal may simply reject it without considering the merits.

There will be no review of evidence.

No witnesses.

No assessment of fairness.

In many cases, the Tribunal will not even have jurisdiction to hear the claim if it is out of time

This is where a large number of cases are effectively lost.

⚖️ What about discrimination claims (Equality Act 2010)?

This is where things become more nuanced — and often misunderstood.

Discrimination claims under the Equality Act are also subject to:

👉 3 months minus 1 day

However, the way time is assessed is different in two important respects.

First, discrimination cases often involve what is known as a “continuing act”.

This means that where there is an ongoing pattern of behaviour (for example, repeated discriminatory treatment or harassment), the time limit may run from the last act in the series, rather than the first.

Second — and crucially — the Tribunal has a broader discretion.

It may allow a claim to proceed out of time if it considers it:

👉 “just and equitable” to do so

This is a significantly wider test than in unfair dismissal cases.

However, in practice, it should not be relied upon. It is discretionary, and outcomes are often unpredictable.

🧠 Why this makes such a difference

In unfair dismissal claims, the key question is usually whether it was:

👉 “reasonably practicable” to bring the claim in time

This is a narrow test and often difficult to satisfy.

In discrimination claims, by contrast, the Tribunal can take a broader view of the circumstances, including:
• what the claimant knew and when
• whether there was confusion about their position
• whether the employer contributed to that confusion
• the overall fairness of allowing the claim to proceed

That flexibility can help — but it also introduces uncertainty.

🔍 A real example from practice

In one of my recent cases, the issue of time limits became central.

The employer argued that the claimant had been dismissed on 14 April 2025, and that the claim had therefore been brought significantly out of time

If that date had been correct, the claim would indeed have been struck out.

However, the factual picture told a different story.

There was no clear evidence that the dismissal had ever been properly communicated to the claimant. The parties continued to communicate after April, payslips were still being issued, and the employer’s conduct suggested that the employment relationship had not in fact been brought to an end at that time.

It was only several months later that the employer first asserted that the claimant had been dismissed back in April.

💥 The moment that changed everything

In the meantime, the claimant — left without clarity and without income — resigned on 18 August 2025.

That date became crucial.

If there had been no effective earlier dismissal, then the resignation was the point at which the employment relationship actually ended

That, in turn, meant that the time limit ran from August, not April.
The result was straightforward:

👉 the claim was in time

Notably, the employer ultimately withdrew its limitation argument and accepted that the relevant date was the resignation.

🧩 Why this matters — especially in discrimination cases

This example illustrates how complex limitation issues can become.

It is not simply a matter of counting three months. It requires identifying:
• when the employment actually ended
• whether a dismissal was effectively communicated
• whether there was an ongoing course of conduct

In discrimination claims, this becomes even more important, because arguments around a “continuing act” or the Tribunal’s discretion can significantly affect the outcome.

A case that appears to be out of time at first glance may, on proper analysis, still be viable.

⏸️ The role of ACAS Early Conciliation

ACAS Early Conciliation often adds another layer of confusion.
It is true that the process pauses the limitation clock, but it does not reset it

If the starting point has been incorrectly identified, ACAS will not fix the problem.

This is one of the most common mistakes in practice.

🚨 The real issue — incorrect assumptions

In many cases, the problem is not a lack of legal knowledge, but a series of understandable assumptions.

People wait to see what their employer will do.

They wait for the outcome of an appeal.

They hope the situation will resolve itself.

All the while, time continues to run.

And by the time advice is sought, it may already be too late.

Conclusion

The Employment Tribunal system can provide meaningful protection for employees.

But it is also highly procedural and strictly governed by time limits.

It is entirely possible to have:
• a strong claim
• clear evidence
• obvious unfairness

and still lose the case because it was brought too late.
In discrimination cases, the position can be more flexible — but also more complex.

👉 The key point is this:

time limits are not a formality.

👉 They are often the most important issue in the entire case.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates: https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates

Royal Mail vs. Mr Williams – A Landmark Reminder of Employers’ Duties to Disabled WorkersThe case of Mr D. Williams v Ro...
25/02/2026

Royal Mail vs. Mr Williams – A Landmark Reminder of Employers’ Duties to Disabled Workers

The case of Mr D. Williams v Royal Mail Group Limited is a powerful recent example of how UK employment law protects workers with disabilities — especially when workplace changes could worsen their mental health.

Below is a simple, engaging breakdown suitable for a general audience.

What Happened?

Mr Williams had worked as a postman in Greater Manchester since he was 15. For decades, he started work at 5:00 a.m., a routine that became essential to his well being because:

• early hours helped him manage autism and anxiety,
• it reduced interactions with crowds,
• and it allowed him to finish early and support his wife, who has long term health issues.

When he returned from sickness absence in 2023, Royal Mail notified him that the standard start time had changed. He would now have to begin at 06:45 (or 07:30 on Tuesdays) instead of 05:00. The company claimed earlier starts no longer fit with the updated operational structure.

The Tribunal’s View

The Employment Tribunal ruled that Royal Mail failed to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee, as required under the Equality Act 2010.

Here are the key points:

1️⃣ The company could have adjusted his hours
The tribunal found that it would have been reasonable to:
• allow Mr Williams to start work at 6:00 a.m.,
• offer a transition period where he could temporarily return to 5:00 a.m. starts,
• reconfigure his delivery route so that a shorter round fit within earlier hours.

Royal Mail has complex route planning software and revises its delivery walks regularly — so adapting one worker’s route wasn’t an unreasonable burden.

2️⃣ The “USO” defence didn’t hold up
Royal Mail argued that altering his shift would breach the Universal Service Obligation (its duty to deliver mail within set timeframes).

But the tribunal noted:
• the employer hadn’t provided evidence that adapting Mr Williams’ start time would compromise the USO,
• minor redistribution of tasks among colleagues is not a valid reason to deny adjustments.

3️⃣ Harassment claim dismissed, but communication was poorly handled
Mr Williams said he felt harassed by repeated letters and emails demanding he “change his hours” while off sick.
The Tribunal agreed the messages were unwanted and understandably stressful — but they did not meet the legal threshold for disability related harassment.

This is because:
• the communication wasn’t related to his disability,
• and did not objectively create a hostile or degrading environment.

4️⃣ Compensation awarded
Because Royal Mail failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal awarded Mr Williams £12,925.59 for injury to feelings. It also recommended that Royal Mail formally confirm a suitable early start time.

Why This Case Matters

This case is an important reminder for both employees and employers:

➡️ For employees
If you have a disability — including autism, depression, or anxiety — you can request:
• modified hours,
• reduced workload,
• different tasks,
• phased returns,
• or other adaptations.

These aren’t “favours” — they are legal rights when failure to adjust would put you at a substantial disadvantage.

➡️ For employers
A “one-size-fits-all” approach to scheduling or duties is not defensible if:
• a disability is known or ought reasonably to be known, and
• simple adjustments could prevent disadvantage.

Employers must show clear evidence if they claim a proposed adjustment is not workable. “Inconvenience” is not a lawful excuse.

The Big Lesson

The tribunal recognised something many workplaces overlook:
Consistency and routine can be vital reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent workers.

Royal Mail had the systems and resources to accommodate Mr Williams — it simply didn’t use them. As a result, the company breached the Equality Act.

This ruling reinforces that supporting disabled employees isn’t just compassionate — it’s the law.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates:

Address

London

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Employment Law in the UK within your reach Marta Inkin:

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category