Dancing on the Edge of “Information”: Capeling v TFX Group Ltd [2026] EAT 57

Some cases arrive at the Employment Appeal Tribunal like thunderclaps, reshaping doctrine or unsettling long‑held assumptions. Others arrive quietly, almost modestly, but leave behind a sharper understanding of the law’s boundaries. Capeling v TFX Group Ltd is firmly in the second category: a small case with a precise point, a reminder that whistleblowing protection is not a catch‑all shield but a carefully defined statutory mechanism with limits that matter.

At its heart, this appeal was about a single question: when does a workplace concern cross the line from a vague complaint into a protected disclosure? The answer, as the EAT makes clear, is not when the claimant believes it should — but when the law says it does.

The Story Behind the Appeal

Mrs Capeling had been employed as a National Sales Manager from March to September 2022. Her dismissal was abrupt — immediate, with only a week’s wages in lieu of notice — and justified by the employer as a response to poor performance. She, however, saw a different narrative: one in which she had raised concerns about health and safety, only to be punished for speaking up.

This disclosure, according to the claimant, was a warning that the company lacked written contracts with certain Dispensing Appliance Contractors (DACs), and that this absence was putting patient safety at risk — a risk she suggested might even be deliberately concealed.

She brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures. Three alleged disclosures were put forward, but by the time the case reached the EAT, only one remained in dispute: the so‑called third disclosure.

It sounds dramatic. It sounds like the kind of thing whistleblowing law was designed to protect. But the Tribunal — and later the EAT — were not persuaded.

The Legal Fault Line: “Information” vs. “Allegation”

The Tribunal’s reasoning, upheld on appeal, turned on two deceptively simple points.

1. The claimant did not disclose “information”

The EAT agreed that what the claimant provided was essentially:

a factual statement: some DAC contracts are missing, and
a broad, unparticularised assertion: this is putting health and safety at risk.

The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that this second part — the health and safety claim — was too general, too unsubstantiated, to amount to “information” under the statutory test

Whistleblowing law draws a line between:

information (which can qualify), and
allegations (which often do not).

A protected disclosure must convey facts, not just fears. It must tell the employer something concrete, not simply gesture toward a risk.

2. Any belief in a health‑and‑safety link was not reasonable

Even if the claimant genuinely believed that missing contracts endangered patients, the Tribunal found — and the EAT accepted — that this belief was not reasonable for someone in her position, with her knowledge of the business.

This is a crucial point. Whistleblowing protection does not require the worker to be right, but it does require them to be reasonably wrong. A belief that is speculative, unresearched, or disconnected from the worker’s actual role will not suffice.

Why This Case Matters

On the surface, Capeling is a narrow decision. But beneath it lies a broader message about the architecture of whistleblowing law.

1. The law protects disclosures, not anxieties

The claimant’s concern may have been sincere. But sincerity is not the test. The law demands specificity: facts, details, something that can be investigated. A generalised “this could be dangerous” will rarely be enough.

2. Reasonableness is contextual

The Tribunal looked at the claimant’s role, her knowledge, and the nature of the contracts. It concluded that she lacked a reasonable basis for linking missing paperwork to patient harm. This is a reminder that whistleblowing protection is not a free‑floating right — it is tethered to what the worker actually knows and can reasonably infer.

3. The EAT will not rescue weak appeals

The judgment is crisp, almost brisk. The EAT saw no error of law, no misdirection, no misapplication of the statutory test. The appeal was dismissed without ceremony.

The Human Story Beneath the Legal One

What lingers after reading this case is not the legal test — though that is important — but the human texture beneath it.

A worker dismissed abruptly. A belief, perhaps honestly held, that she was raising something important. A sense of injustice that propelled her through the Tribunal and into the EAT. And then the cold clarity of the law: not every workplace concern is a protected disclosure, and not every dismissal following a complaint is whistleblowing retaliation.

There is a melancholy to cases like this. They remind us that employment law is not a moral tribunal; it is a statutory framework with defined thresholds. The claimant may have felt she was doing the right thing. The Tribunal may even have believed she acted in good faith. But good faith alone is not enough.

The law asks:
What did you say?
What did you know?
And was your belief reasonable?

In Capeling, the answers did not meet the statutory bar.

Conclusion: A Small Case with a Sharp Edge

Capeling v TFX Group Ltd will not make headlines. It will not reshape doctrine. But it will sit quietly in the background of future whistleblowing cases, reminding lawyers and claimants alike that:

vague assertions are not disclosures,
belief must be grounded in reason, and
the law protects information, not speculation.

It is a case about boundaries — the boundary between concern and disclosure, between belief and reasonable belief, between dismissal and protected dismissal. And like all boundary cases, it sharpens the edges of the law.

By Pat Harrington

The Case for a Shorter Working Week: A Necessary Change

For more than a century, every major advance in working time has followed the same pattern: workers demand change, employers resist it, the right‑wing press declares it impossible — and then, once won, society quietly accepts it as common sense. The eight‑hour day, the weekend, paid holidays, maternity leave: all were once dismissed as utopian fantasies. Today they are the bedrock of modern working life.

The campaign for a shorter working week — including the four‑day week — sits squarely in that tradition. And as the Morning Star reported from the CWU conference on 13 May 2026, the movement is gathering real momentum.

Delegates packed into a fringe meeting to hear how unions can push the issue forward. Phil Lindsey of the Four Day Week campaign reminded workers that the backlash we see today is nothing new. As he put it, the scepticism in the right‑wing press “mirrored the long demolished arguments over the five‑day week a century ago.” The same tired warnings, the same manufactured panic, the same insistence that workers must accept exhaustion as the price of economic survival.

But history is not on the side of the sceptics.

A shorter week is not radical — the status quo is

CWU T&FSE’s Mel Wilson cut through the noise with a clarity that resonated far beyond the conference hall. “A shorter working week isn’t radical,” she said. “What’s radical is expecting workers to absorb constant change, rising pressure and longer demands without giving them anything back.”

That line captures the heart of the debate. The real extremism is the idea that work should expand endlessly while wages stagnate, stress rises, and the boundaries between labour and life dissolve. The radicalism lies in the demand that workers simply endure more — more pressure, more surveillance, more targets, more burnout — while receiving less in return.

Wilson went further: “This campaign is about fairness. It’s about dignity. It’s about balance. It’s about taking back control of our time.” In those words is the essence of trade unionism: the fight not only for pay, but for the quality of life that pay is meant to support.

The economic case: productivity follows wellbeing

The evidence from global trials is clear. When workers have more rest, more autonomy, and more time to live their lives, productivity rises. Absenteeism falls. Staff retention improves. Creativity increases. Companies save money. Workers gain time.

This is not a zero‑sum game. It is a rebalancing of a system that has drifted into dysfunction.

Phil Lindsey pointed out that “at the start of 2027, there’s two big names starting trials of a four‑day week as a result of worker campaigns hard for but well won.” That matters. When major employers shift, the political and cultural landscape shifts with them. What was once fringe becomes feasible. What was once feasible becomes inevitable.

The social case: time is a public good

A shorter working week is not only an economic reform — it is a social one. It strengthens families, supports carers, improves mental health, and gives people the time to participate in civic life. It reduces carbon emissions by cutting commuting. It opens space for education, volunteering, and community involvement.

In an age of rising loneliness, collapsing public services, and fraying social bonds, time is not a luxury. It is infrastructure.

The political case: workers must set the agenda

The labour movement has always been strongest when it articulates a vision of the future, not merely a defence of the present. The shorter working week is such a vision — a concrete, winnable demand that speaks to millions of workers who feel squeezed, exhausted, and unheard.

The CWU delegates understood this. The packed fringe meeting was not just a discussion; it was a signal. Workers are ready for this fight. They know that the economy is not a natural force but a human creation — and that working time is a political choice.

As Wilson told the room: “If we organise and build across every workplace, we can win this.” That is not rhetoric. It is a strategy.

A movement whose time has come

The shorter working week is not a dream. It is a practical, evidence‑based reform supported by workers, economists, and forward‑thinking employers. It is a response to a world where technology has increased productivity but the benefits have not been shared. It is a corrective to decades of intensification and burnout. It is a demand rooted in fairness, dignity, and the belief that life should be more than labour.

The CWU conference showed that the movement is no longer theoretical. It is organised. It is growing. And it is winnable.

The question is no longer whether we can afford a shorter working week.
The question is whether we can afford not to win it.

By Maria Camara

May Day Message from our General Secretary

May Day reminds us why workers organise.
This year’s global theme — ensuring a healthy psychosocial working environment — speaks directly to what our members face every day: excessive workloads, chronic understaffing, burnout, and the pressure to be “always on”.

During a recent back to work meeting I attended with a member, the manager described their workplace as an ‘American style’ company that thrives on high stress, as if that intensity were a badge of honour. Our union always politely challenges these wrong-headed notions (although I’m sometimes tempted to tell them where to put their American practices!) Here in Britain, we value a different approach, grounded in the Equality Act and the belief that a supportive and inclusive work environment leads to well-being and better outcomes. Personally, I see the idea that high stress boosts productivity as a a dangerous myth. In truth, a healthier and more balanced atmosphere leads to more sustainable success.

Solidarity stands with every worker who is carrying more than they should.
We stand with those fighting for fair pay, safe staffing levels, reasonable hours, and the right to disconnect.
And we stand with those in insecure work who deserve the same protections as everyone else.

On May Day, we honour the generations who fought before us — and we commit to building workplaces where dignity, safety, and mental wellbeing are not optional extras but basic rights.

Solidarity today. Solidarity every day.

Pat Harrington

St George’s Day: Work, Identity, and the Quiet Politics of a Missed Holiday

St George’s Day arrives each year with a strange kind of weightlessness. England’s flags appear in pub windows, schoolchildren draw dragons, and local councils put on modest parades — yet the country works straight through its own national day. It is a celebration observed in spirit but not in structure, and that tension has become increasingly relevant to British trade unionists.

In recent years, unions have begun to use 23 April as a moment of strategic emphasis. When the RMT timed industrial action for St George’s Day, it wasn’t a coincidence. It was a deliberate act of political framing: if this is England’s national day, why is it treated as indistinguishable from any other Tuesday? The strike sharpened a question that has been lingering for years — what does it mean to celebrate a nation symbolically while refusing to honour it with a shared day of rest?

This is where the debate over a St George’s Day bank holiday becomes more than a cultural curiosity. It becomes a conversation about labour, identity, and the value placed on collective time.

The Argument For a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

Supporters of a new bank holiday tend to circle around three themes: cultural parity, worker wellbeing, and the reclamation of English identity.

First, parity. England is the only nation in the UK without a public holiday for its patron saint. Scotland rests on St Andrew’s Day; Wales marks St David’s Day; Northern Ireland embraces St Patrick’s Day with full civic confidence. England’s absence stands out. For many, this is not about nationalism but about balance — the idea that England should be able to celebrate itself without embarrassment or hesitation.

Second, the value of rest. Trade unionists see the potential for a meaningful pause in a country that has fewer public holidays than many comparable nations. A St George’s Day holiday would offer workers a collective moment to breathe, reflect, and reconnect. In an era of rising workloads, burnout, and the erosion of work‑life boundaries, the symbolism of a shared day off matters. It says something about what a nation values.

Third, reclaiming the flag. English identity has often been left to the margins, claimed by fringe groups or politicised in ways that make ordinary people wary of embracing it. A national holiday could help re‑anchor the flag in inclusive civic pride rather than exclusionary rhetoric. It would give England a day that belongs to everyone — not just those who shout the loudest.

The Argument Against a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

Opponents of the idea tend to focus on economic caution, political hesitancy, and the risk of symbolic distraction.

The economic argument is straightforward: an additional bank holiday disrupts productivity, places pressure on public services, and creates costs for businesses already under strain. Governments of different stripes have used this reasoning to avoid committing to the idea.

The political argument is subtler. English identity is a sensitive terrain. Governments often prefer to gesture towards it rather than legislate around it. A bank holiday risks becoming a lightning rod — too nationalistic for some, not nationalistic enough for others. The result is a cautious refusal to engage.

The symbolic argument comes from within the labour movement itself. Some union voices argue that a holiday, while welcome, does not address the structural issues workers face: pay erosion, unsafe conditions, insecure contracts, and the steady intensification of work. A day off, they warn, must not become a substitute for meaningful reform.

Why Trade Unionists Care

For trade unionists, St George’s Day is not simply about flags or folklore. It is about the politics of time. A nation that cannot pause for its own celebration is a nation that has not yet reconciled its identity with its labour reality.

When unions strike on 23 April, they are making a pointed observation: England asks workers to celebrate their country while working through the celebration. The contradiction is not trivial. It speaks to a deeper imbalance in how England understands itself — proud in rhetoric, hesitant in practice, and reluctant to grant workers the dignity of a shared national moment.

St George’s Day, in this sense, becomes a mirror. It reflects a country still negotiating what it means to belong, to rest, and to recognise itself.

The Larger Question

The debate over a St George’s Day bank holiday is not really about dragons, saints, or medieval legends. It is about whether England is ready to align its cultural symbolism with its lived experience. It is about whether national pride can be expressed through collective rest rather than commercial spectacle. And it is about whether workers — the people who keep the country functioning — deserve a day that acknowledges both their labour and their place in the national story.

Until that question is resolved, St George’s Day will continue to hover in the English calendar as a half‑celebration, a day that gestures towards identity without fully embracing it. And trade unionists will continue to use it as a reminder that a nation’s values are measured not only in symbols, but in the time it grants its people to breathe.

By Pat Harrington

Court Decision: Volunteers Are Not Workers Under Employment Law

Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson‑Blake [2021] UKSC 8

This case confirms that a volunteer with no contractual obligation to perform work is not a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The absence of mutuality of obligation and the purely voluntary nature of the arrangement were decisive.

Overview

This case sits at the intersection of care work, low‑paid labour, and the legal architecture that distinguishes work from service. It is a reminder that the law’s categories—worker, employee, volunteer—are not moral judgments but contractual ones. The courts were asked to decide whether a volunteer who attended a callout, despite having no obligation to do so, could be treated as a worker and therefore entitled to statutory rights.

The answer, delivered with the cool precision of appellate reasoning, was no. The absence of mutuality of obligation—no duty to attend, no duty to offer work—meant the relationship never crossed the threshold into worker status.

Facts

Mr Groom volunteered with the Croydon Relief Organisation (CRO), assisting vulnerable service users and occasionally attending callouts. The CRO handbook set expectations of professionalism and attendance, but crucially, it did not bind him contractually. He received reimbursement of travel expenses only—no wages, no honorarium, no retainer.

In 2016 he attended a callout and later claimed he was a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996, seeking unpaid wages and holiday pay. The Supreme Court, drawing on the principles articulated in Uber BV v Aslam, emphasised that worker status requires:

• Personal service, and

• Mutuality of obligation—the employer must be obliged to offer work, and the individual obliged to perform it.

Neither existed here. The handbook was not a contract, and the reimbursement of expenses did not create legal obligations. lawcases.net

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Mr Groom was not a worker. The Court of Appeal’s rejection of his claim was upheld. The reasoning aligned with the broader jurisprudence: voluntarism, without contractual underpinning, does not morph into employment merely because the volunteer behaves responsibly or attends when asked.

The Court reaffirmed that:

• A volunteer’s attendance, even if regular or reliable, does not create mutuality of obligation.

• Reimbursement of expenses is not remuneration.

• A handbook expressing expectations does not constitute a binding contract.

This approach mirrors the logic in Uber BV v Aslam, where the Supreme Court stressed that worker status is grounded in the reality of contractual obligations, not the appearance of structured activity.

Comment

There is a quiet melancholy to cases like this. They expose the gap between the moral value of care and the legal value of labour. Mr Groom stepped forward to help someone in distress—a gesture of civic solidarity. Yet the law, with its insistence on contractual formality, treats that gesture as outside the sphere of employment protection.

This is not a failure of compassion but a structural choice: employment rights attach to obligations, not goodwill. The courts are wary of expanding worker status in ways that might chill voluntary organisations or blur the line between paid and unpaid service.

Still, the case invites a broader reflection. In sectors where volunteers perform roles indistinguishable from paid staff, the boundary between altruism and labour becomes ethically fraught. The law resolves the question by looking for mutuality of obligation. Society may wish for something more generous.

By Pat Harrington

Procedural Fairness in Employee Dismissals: Kisheva Case

The Unfair Dismissal of a Door Supervisor and the Collapse of Procedural Fairness

Overview

The dismissal of Ms Yovka Kisheva, a door supervisor employed by Secure Frontline Services Ltd (SFS), is now formally recorded in the law reports as Kisheva v Secure Frontline Services Ltd [2025] EAT 194. It is a case that exposes how a routine shift‑management misunderstanding can metastasise into a finding of gross misconduct when an employer abandons the basic architecture of fairness.

Both the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) condemned the employer’s approach as procedurally barren, factually untested, and legally indefensible. The EAT’s judgment is particularly stark: the employer operated with an “absence of any proper procedure”, a phrase that should ring in the ears of every HR manager and security‑sector operator.

Factual Background

On the day in question, Kisheva left her shift early, having informed the on‑site manager. SFS Security later alleged that she had failed to notify head office, treating this as a gross misconduct breach.

Rather than establishing what actually happened, the employer constructed a disciplinary case around assumption and suspicion. The investigation included an extraordinary and irrelevant step: polling her son’s email account to check for communications. This was not only disproportionate but also detached from the alleged misconduct.

Kisheva appealed internally. The appeal was dismissed. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

Tribunal Findings

Employment Tribunal

The ET found the dismissal unfair on three principal grounds:

• No reasonable investigation — The employer never clarified whether the on‑site manager had authority to approve her departure, nor what the reporting procedure required in practice.

• Procedural irregularities — The process was muddled, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence. The email‑polling episode was singled out as particularly inappropriate.

• Disproportionate sanction — Even if there had been a communication lapse, gross misconduct was an excessive and unreasonable response.

Employment Appeal Tribunal — Kisheva v Secure Frontline Services Ltd [2025] EAT 194

The EAT upheld the ET’s decision. Judge Barklem emphasised:

• the absence of any proper procedure,

• the employer’s failure to establish a reasonable belief based on a reasonable investigation,

• and the lack of any rational basis for treating the incident as gross misconduct.

The EAT’s judgment now stands as a clear authority on the limits of managerial discretion in the security sector.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a reminder that gross misconduct is not a managerial shortcut. It requires:

• a clear rule,

• a clear breach,

• a proportionate response,

• and a procedurally sound investigation.

SFS Security failed on all four.

The case also exposes a broader cultural problem: when employers treat administrative expectations as if they were disciplinary tripwires, workers become vulnerable to arbitrary sanction. The law insists that employers ask questions before drawing conclusions, and that they test their assumptions rather than act on them.

For unions, advocates, and workers, the lesson is simple: procedure is protection.

Commentary

What makes Kisheva so instructive is its ordinariness. A worker left early with permission. The employer assumed wrongdoing, built a case around that assumption, and imposed the harshest sanction available. The Tribunal’s response was proportionate: you cannot dismiss first and investigate later.

The EAT’s criticism of the employer’s “absence of any proper procedure” is a warning to the industry. Security work often involves fragmented communication, lone working, and multiple reporting lines. Employers must adapt their procedures to that reality rather than punish workers for navigating it.

This case should be used in training for managers, union reps, and HR practitioners as a model of how not to conduct a disciplinary process.

By Patrick Harrington

Violence at Work: The Hidden Crisis Facing Britain’s Public‑Facing Workforce

The latest findings from the Trades Union Congress land with the weight of a national warning. Their new survey, covering more than five thousand workers across the UK, reveals a working world in which violence and abuse have become disturbingly routine. What emerges is not a collection of isolated incidents but a portrait of a workforce exposed, unprotected, and increasingly resigned to harm. It is a crisis that has been building in plain sight, and one that demands a far more serious response than it has so far received.

The headline figure is stark: eight in ten workers experienced some form of abuse in the past year. This is not a marginal problem affecting a handful of volatile workplaces. It is a systemic pattern cutting across transport, education, prisons, health and social care, and local government—sectors that form the backbone of public life. The survey shows that nearly 40% of respondents work in transport, a sector where staff shortages, passenger frustration, and operational pressures collide daily. Education workers report abuse from pupils and parents; prison staff face the constant threat of violence; health and social care workers navigate environments where emotional strain and under‑resourcing heighten risk. These are not abstract categories—they are the people who keep society functioning.

The frequency of abuse is equally troubling. More than half of workers say they experience violence or abuse weekly or more, and nearly one in five face it monthly. This regularity is what transforms individual incidents into a structural problem. When violence becomes predictable, it becomes normalised. And when it becomes normalised, it becomes invisible to those with the power to change it.

The perpetrators are not confined to one group. Customers, passengers, members of the public, pupils, colleagues, and even managers appear in the data. This breadth matters. It shows that violence is not simply a matter of “difficult customers” or “challenging environments”. It is a cultural issue—one that reflects how workers are valued, how services are funded, and how employers understand their duty of care.

The human consequences are severe. Nearly half of respondents feared for their safety during the most serious incident they experienced. Others suffered physical injury, required medical treatment, or needed police involvement. A third reported mental trauma. These are not minor workplace irritations; they are harms that reshape lives, careers, and families. Yet more than half of those who did not report incidents said they believed violence was simply “part of the job”. That phrase—so often repeated in frontline sectors—reveals the depth of resignation that has taken hold. It is a quiet, corrosive acceptance that harm is inevitable and that nothing will change.

This resignation is not accidental. It has been cultivated by a decade and a half of cuts to the very institutions meant to protect workers. The Health and Safety Executive, once a robust regulator, has seen its funding cut by more than 50% since 2010. Inspector numbers have fallen, inspections have dwindled, and enforcement has weakened. A regulator cannot regulate when starved of resources. The result is a vacuum in which employers face little scrutiny and workers face escalating risk. The TUC is right to call this out. A society that claims to value its frontline workers cannot simultaneously dismantle the structures designed to keep them safe.

The deeper question is why violence has become so embedded in the modern workplace. Part of the answer lies in austerity. When staffing levels fall, waiting times rise, and services strain under demand, frustration spills onto the people who remain. Another part lies in management culture. Too many employers treat violence as an unavoidable by‑product of public‑facing work rather than a preventable hazard. And then there is the silence—workers who do not report incidents because they believe nothing will happen. That silence is not apathy; it is exhaustion.

For unions, the implications are clear. Violence at work is not an individual problem but a collective one. It requires collective solutions: stronger reporting systems, violence‑specific risk assessments, trauma‑informed support, and a regulatory environment capable of enforcing the law. It also requires a cultural shift in which violence is recognised not as an occupational inevitability but as a failure of planning, staffing, and leadership.

The TUC’s message is blunt: unionised workplaces are safer. This is not rhetoric; it is borne out by decades of evidence. Where unions are present, risks are identified earlier, incidents are challenged, and employers are held to account. In a climate where violence is rising and regulatory oversight is weakening, collective organisation becomes not just beneficial but essential.

The crisis revealed by the TUC survey is not one that can be solved by platitudes or piecemeal interventions. It demands a national commitment to restoring the Health and Safety Executive, strengthening legal protections for public‑facing workers, and ensuring that employers meet their obligations. It demands that violence be treated not as an unfortunate feature of modern work but as a breach of fundamental rights.

Above all, it demands that workers are not left to face danger alone. Violence is never “part of the job”. It is a sign that something has gone profoundly wrong in the way we organise work, value labour, and protect those who serve the public. The task now is to confront that reality with honesty, urgency, and solidarity—and to build a working world in which safety is not a privilege but a guarantee.

By Maria Camara

Picture credit: KollectivFutur

Safety on Britain’s Railways Is Failing — Workers Need Protection Now

The British rail industry is living through a period of profound contradiction. Ministers and operators speak the language of “modernisation,” “efficiency,” and “digital transformation,” yet the lived reality for rail workers is one of rising violence, shrinking safety budgets, eroded dignity, and a creeping institutional amnesia about the lessons written in blood across the last century of rail history.

In an article in the February Labour Research magazine ‘The railways: safe for rail workers’ —and across the testimonies of our own members—the same themes recur: assaults rising year on year, mental health neglected, earthworks left to crumble, and the lessons of Carmont already fading from managerial memory. The railways are not unsafe by accident. They are made unsafe by political choice.

This essay gathers those threads and sets out the case—our case—for a rail system that treats workers’ safety not as a cost centre but as the foundation of a functioning public service.

1. Violence Against Rail Workers: The Hidden Epidemic

The numbers alone should shame the industry.

• Assaults on rail workers rose 17% in 2022/23, with more than 3,000 incidents reported.

• Since 2019, assaults have increased by over 50%.

• Only 68% of assaults were even recorded by British Transport Police.

• Only one in four resulted in charges.

Behind each statistic is a worker who went to do their job and instead faced aggression, threats, or physical harm. Ticket office closures, lone working, and understaffing have created the perfect conditions for violence to flourish. When companies talk about “customer service improvements,” they rarely mention that the human beings delivering those services are increasingly exposed and unsupported.

Unions have fought back. The TSSA’s agreement with the Rail Delivery Group on aftercare and counselling is a step forward, but it is not enough. Body‑worn cameras help, but they are not a shield against a political climate that treats public‑facing workers as disposable shock absorbers for social frustration.

Violence is not inevitable. It is the predictable outcome of a system that prioritises cost‑cutting over human safety.

2. Carmont and the Price of Austerity

The Carmont crash of 2020—Britain’s worst rail disaster in nearly 20 years—was not an unforeseeable act of nature. It was the result of a landslip caused by heavy rain, hitting a section of track whose risks had not been properly assessed. Three people died.

The RAIB report was clear: the driver and conductor did everything possible. The failure was systemic.

Yet in the years following the crash, Network Rail’s spending on earthworks was cut by 25%.

Cuts to drainage, embankments, culverts, and monitoring systems are not abstract budget lines. They are the difference between a safe railway and another Carmont. When unions warn that lessons are being forgotten, they are not being rhetorical. They are describing a real, measurable retreat from safety.

Austerity is not a neutral policy. It is a safety hazard.

3. Lessons Forgotten: The Danger of Complacency

The TSSA has warned that the Carmont crash is already being treated as an anomaly rather than a warning. Britain’s long‑term safety record is often cited as proof that the system is fundamentally sound. But safety is not a static achievement. It is a culture—one that must be renewed, resourced, and defended.

Complacency is itself a risk factor. When budgets tighten, safety is the first thing to be reframed as “efficiency.” When institutional memory fades, the same mistakes reappear in new forms. When workers raise concerns, they are too often treated as obstacles to “progress.”

The rail industry cannot afford another era of forgetting.

4. Air Quality Underground: The Invisible Threat

While the public debates fares and timetables, another danger lurks beneath London: toxic air.

The TSSA’s Tube Air Quality Campaign has forced the issue into the open. PM2.5 particles—generated by brake dust and wheel wear—are present at levels that would be unacceptable in any other workplace. Research from Imperial College London shows these particles penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream.

Workers spend entire careers underground. The long‑term health implications are obvious, yet investment in ventilation, filtration, and cleaning remains inadequate.

The Underground is the beating heart of London. It should not be a slow‑burn occupational health crisis.

5. Mental Health: The Unspoken Cost of Rail Work

Shift work, isolation, traumatic incidents, and the constant pressure of public scrutiny take a toll. The RMT’s Mental Health Charter is a vital intervention, but it exists because employers have failed to provide the support workers need.

Mental health is not a “soft” issue. It is a safety issue. A workforce under chronic stress is a workforce at risk.

6. The Politics of Safety: Why Public Ownership Matters

Every issue above—violence, infrastructure neglect, air quality, mental health—shares a common root: a fragmented, underfunded, profit‑driven rail system.

Unions are right to demand:

• A fully funded, publicly owned railway

• Investment in infrastructure, not cuts

• Safety as a non‑negotiable principle

• A culture that remembers its history rather than repeating it

Safety is not a cost. It is the foundation of a civilised transport system.

7. A Railway Worthy of Its Workers

The railways are often described as the arteries of the nation. But arteries only function when they are cared for, maintained, and protected. The workers who keep the system running deserve dignity, safety, and respect—not rising violence, shrinking budgets, and forgotten lessons.

The Solidarity Union stands with every rail worker fighting for a safer industry. We stand with the RMT, the TSSA, and every rep who refuses to accept that danger is “part of the job.” And we stand with the public, who deserve a railway built on investment, not austerity.

A safe railway is a political choice. It is time to choose it.

By Maria Camara

Ending an Employment Contract: A Worker‑Centred Guide for 2026

Termination of employment is never just a technical moment in a contract. It is a point of vulnerability, a site of power imbalance, and often the moment when an employer’s culture reveals itself most starkly. Whether a worker resigns, is dismissed, or faces a more ambiguous “mutual agreement,” the law provides a framework — but it is workers, unions, and collective organisation that give that framework meaning.

This guide sets out the essentials of UK law on ending employment in 2026, with a focus on what workers need to know, what employers often get wrong, and how Solidarity can support members through the process.

1. The Three Main Routes Out of Employment

Resignation

A resignation must be clear and unambiguous. UK tribunals continue to reject attempts by employers to treat heat‑of‑the‑moment comments (“I’ve had enough,” “I’m done”) as binding resignations unless the worker confirms them later.

Key points:

• Workers must give contractual notice unless the employer has fundamentally breached the contract (constructive dismissal).

• Employers cannot “accept” a resignation that was never clearly given.

• A resignation given under duress — threats, pressure, or manipulation — may be invalid.

Dismissal

A dismissal occurs when the employer ends the contract. The law recognises five potentially fair reasons:

• Conduct

• Capability

• Redundancy

• Statutory illegality

• Some other substantial reason (SOSR)

But the reason is only half the story. A dismissal must also be procedurally fair. In 2026, tribunals continue to emphasise:

• A proper investigation

• A fair hearing

• The right to be accompanied

• Proportionate sanctions

• Consistency with how other workers are treated

Mutual termination / settlement agreements

Increasingly common, often used to avoid formal procedures. Workers should be cautious:

• A settlement agreement is only valid if the worker receives independent legal advice.

• Employers often frame these as “friendly exits,” but they are legal instruments designed to protect the employer.

• Solidarity strongly encourages members to seek union advice before signing anything.

2. Why the Date of Termination Matters

The termination date affects:

• Notice pay

• Accrual of holiday

• Continuous service (vital for unfair dismissal rights)

• Pension contributions

• Eligibility for redundancy pay

Tribunals have repeatedly held that the termination date is:

• The date the dismissal takes effect, not the date the letter is written.

• For resignations, the date the employer receives the resignation, not when the worker sends it.

• For summary dismissals, the date the employer communicates the decision.

In 2025–26 case law, tribunals have continued to scrutinise employers who attempt to manipulate dates to avoid liability — especially around the two‑year qualifying period for unfair dismissal.

3. Notice Periods: What Workers Are Owed

Statutory minimum notice

• One week if employed between one month and two years.

• One additional week per year of service up to a maximum of 12.

Contractual notice

If the contract gives more generous notice, that applies.

Pay in lieu of notice (PILON)

Employers can pay workers instead of requiring them to work notice, but:

• The contract must allow it, or

• The employer risks breaching the contract (which may increase compensation).

Garden leave

Employers may require workers to stay away from work during notice, but they must:

• Continue full pay and benefits

• Not use garden leave to punish or isolate workers

4. Constructive Dismissal: When Resignation Is Forced

Constructive dismissal remains one of the most misunderstood areas of employment law.

A worker may resign and claim constructive dismissal if the employer commits a fundamental breach of contract, such as:

• Bullying or harassment

• Unilateral changes to hours, pay, or duties

• Unsafe working conditions

• Ignoring grievances

• Disciplinary action taken in bad faith

The worker must resign promptly in response to the breach. Delay can be interpreted as acceptance.

Solidarity’s experience is that employers often rely on workers not knowing this right exists.

5. Wrongful vs Unfair Dismissal

These terms are often confused.

Wrongful dismissal

A contractual claim — usually about notice pay.

Key question: Did the employer breach the contract?

Unfair dismissal

A statutory claim — about reasonableness and fairness.

Key questions:

• Was there a fair reason?

• Was the process fair?

• Was dismissal a reasonable response?

Workers with certain continuous service usually qualify, but there are exceptions where no qualifying period is needed (e.g., whistleblowing, discrimination, asserting statutory rights).

6. Discrimination and Protected Characteristics

Here is a fully integrated, more nuanced, more protective, and more legally precise version of your section. It reads as a single, coherent piece and includes the additional layers you asked for—perception, association, and mixed‑motive discrimination—without losing clarity or authority.

6. Discrimination and Protected Characteristics

A dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for it is connected—directly, indirectly, or even partly—to any of the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, the employee does not need two years’ service, and the employer’s reasoning, process, and underlying assumptions will be examined closely, including unconscious bias, inconsistent treatment, and reliance on stereotypes.

This protection applies not only where the characteristic is genuinely held, but also where it is perceived to be held or where the employee is treated unfavourably because of their association with someone who has a protected characteristic. A dismissal remains unlawful even where the protected characteristic is only one of several motives behind the decision.

The protected characteristics are:

Race — including colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. This covers explicit discrimination and more subtle forms, such as assumptions about cultural “fit”, language ability, or differential disciplinary standards.
Sex — applying equally to men and women. This includes dismissals influenced by gendered expectations, unequal behavioural standards, or assumptions about suitability for certain roles.
Disability — covering physical and mental impairments with a substantial and long‑term impact. A dismissal linked to disability‑related absence, behaviour arising from a disability, or a failure to consider reasonable adjustments may be automatically unfair.
Age — protecting workers of all ages. Decisions influenced by assumptions about capability, energy, experience, or “generational traits” fall within this category.
Religion or belief — including non‑religious philosophical beliefs that meet legal criteria. Dismissals connected to religious observance, expression, or perceived incompatibility with workplace culture may be discriminatory.
Sexual orientation — covering heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees. This includes dismissals influenced by prejudice, discomfort, or assumptions about lifestyle or behaviour.
Gender reassignment — protecting anyone proposing to undergo, undergoing, or who has undergone a process of transitioning. This includes dismissals linked to appearance, name changes, or colleagues’ reactions.
Pregnancy or maternity — one of the strongest protections in UK law. Any dismissal connected to pregnancy, pregnancy‑related illness, or maternity leave is automatically unfair, regardless of length of service or employer intent.
Marriage or civil partnership — protecting employees from dismissal because they are married or in a civil partnership, including situations where partnered employees are treated differently from single colleagues.

Employers often attempt to disguise discriminatory motives behind “performance” or “conduct” narratives. Tribunals are increasingly alert to this, especially where:

• There is a pattern of differential treatment

• Procedures are rushed or inconsistent

• Adjustments for disability are ignored

7. Redundancy: Rights and Realities

Redundancy must be genuine. Employers must:

• Consult meaningfully

• Use fair selection criteria

• Consider alternatives to redundancy

• Offer suitable alternative employment where available

Workers with two years’ service are entitled to statutory redundancy pay, but many employers offer enhanced packages.

Solidarity regularly challenges:

• “Sham” redundancies used to remove individuals

• Selection criteria that are opaque or subjective

• Failure to consult collectively where required

8. The Union’s Role: Power, Clarity, Protection

Employment law provides the floor, not the ceiling. Solidarity’s approach is grounded in:

• Early intervention — the earlier a member contacts us, the more options we have.

• Documentation — keeping records, emails, and timelines.

• Representation — ensuring no worker faces a meeting alone.

• Collective pressure — employers behave differently when they know workers are organised.

Termination is not just a legal event; it is a moment where solidarity matters most.

9. Practical Steps for Workers Facing Termination

1. Contact Solidarity immediately — even if you think it’s “not serious yet.”

2. Keep everything in writing — verbal conversations should be followed up with an email summary.

3. Request your personnel file if you suspect unfairness.

4. Do not sign anything (especially settlement agreements) without advice.

5. Record dates — they matter more than most people realise.

6. Stay calm, stay factual, stay supported — you are not alone.

10. Final Thoughts: The Human Reality Behind the Legal Framework

Employment law is often presented as neutral, technical, and balanced. But workers know the truth: the end of a contract is rarely a meeting of equals. It is shaped by power, culture, and the employer’s willingness to treat people with dignity.

This guide is not just about rights — it is about agency, collective strength, and the insistence that workers deserve fairness not only in law but in practice.

Solidarity stands with every worker navigating this moment.

By Pat Harrington

Unions as Architects of Sovereignty: How the Labour Movement Can Lead Britain’s Industrial Renewal

The government’s new insourcing rules mark a shift in industrial policy, but the deeper work of rebuilding Britain’s productive base will not be led from Whitehall alone. Unions—rooted in workplaces, communities, and lived experience—are uniquely placed to shape a sovereign industrial strategy that restores capability, strengthens democracy, and secures the nation’s energy future.

A New Industrial Moment, and a New Responsibility

The government is finally acknowledging what unions have argued for decades: that outsourcing has weakened national resilience and hollowed out the country’s industrial core. But recognition is not leadership. The labour movement now faces a moment of opportunity—and responsibility.

Unions are not merely stakeholders in industrial strategy. They are the only institutions with:

a direct line to the workforce
a presence in every strategic sector
democratic legitimacy
long memory of past industrial decline
and a moral commitment to the public good

This gives unions a unique vantage point from which to shape the next phase of Britain’s industrial renewal.

Why Unions Must Lead the Strategy, Not Just Respond to It

Industrial strategy is often framed as a technocratic exercise—plans, frameworks, incentives. But the real work happens in workshops, shipyards, power stations, fabrication plants, and control rooms. It happens in the hands of workers.

Unions understand:

the skills that exist
the skills that have been lost
the skills that must be rebuilt
the conditions required for safe, high‑quality work
and the lived consequences of industrial decline

This knowledge is not abstract. It is embodied. It is practical. It is strategic.

A sovereign industrial strategy cannot be written without it.

Seven Ways Unions Can Shape Britain’s Industrial Future

1. Establish Worker‑Led Industrial Councils

Sectoral councils—co‑chaired by unions and industry—can guide long‑term planning in:

steel
shipbuilding
energy infrastructure
nuclear
renewables
AI and digital systems

These councils would identify capability gaps, coordinate investment, and ensure that industrial strategy is grounded in real workplace knowledge.

2. Lead a National Skills Renaissance

Unions can anchor a skills revival by:

creating union‑led training centres
designing apprenticeships tied to domestic content requirements
supporting mid‑career retraining for energy transition jobs
ensuring that new technologies come with new protections

Skills are the backbone of sovereignty. Unions are the backbone of skills.

3. Negotiate Domestic Content Agreements

Unions can push for binding commitments that:

public contracts use British steel
offshore wind uses British fabrication
nuclear projects use British components
hydrogen and storage systems are built in Britain

These agreements turn insourcing from policy into practice.

4. Champion Public Ownership Where It Matters

Unions can articulate the case for public ownership of:

the grid
transmission networks
strategic generation assets
large‑scale storage

This is not ideological. It is about resilience, planning, and democratic control.

5. Shape Regional Industrial Clusters

Unions can help design regional strategies that build on local strengths:

the North East in offshore wind
South Wales in steel
Scotland in tidal and hydrogen
the Midlands in advanced manufacturing
Northern Ireland in shipbuilding

This ensures that industrial renewal is place‑based, not London‑centric.

6. Embed Worker Voice in Every Major Project

From procurement to design to delivery, unions can ensure:

safe working conditions
fair pay
secure contracts
high‑quality standards
community benefit agreements

Worker voice is not a courtesy—it is a strategic asset.

7. Hold Government to Its Promises

The new insourcing rules are a beginning, not an end. Unions must:

monitor compliance
expose offshoring
challenge weak enforcement
demand transparency
and insist that public money builds public capability

Accountability is the difference between policy and progress.

A Democratic Industrial Strategy

Industrial strategy is not simply about factories, grids, and supply chains. It is about the kind of country Britain chooses to be. A sovereign nation is one that:

trusts its workers
invests in its communities
builds its own future
and refuses to outsource its destiny

Unions are the democratic institutions best placed to articulate this vision—not as nostalgia, but as a forward‑looking project of national renewal.

The next step is deciding how boldly the labour movement wants to act.

By Pat Harrington