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

The Battle of Orgreave Inquiry Begins: A Historic Chance for Truth, Accountability, and Justice

More than forty years after police violence scarred the miners’ strike, the long‑delayed inquiry into the Battle of Orgreave has finally begun. For the communities who lived through 1984—and for every worker who has faced the heavy hand of the state—this is a long‑overdue chance to expose the truth, confront institutional wrongdoing, and demand justice that has been denied for generations.

he launch of the long‑awaited inquiry into the Battle of Orgreave marks a watershed moment in the struggle for truth about one of the most notorious episodes of state violence in modern British industrial history. More than four decades after the events of 18 June 1984, the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Peter Wilcox, opened the inquiry with a commitment to “impartiality, humility and a firm commitment to transparency” . For the miners who lived through that day—and for the generations of workers who inherited its legacy—this inquiry is not simply a matter of historical record. It is a test of whether the British state can finally confront the truth about how it wielded power against its own people.

What Happened at Orgreave

On that June morning in 1984, thousands of striking miners gathered outside the Orgreave Coking Plant near Rotherham. They were met by an unprecedented mobilisation of police, including mounted officers and units equipped with riot gear. Over several hours, violent clashes unfolded. Police charged pickets on horseback, struck miners with batons, and dragged them into vans. Ninety‑five miners were arrested for riot and unlawful assembly—charges that were later dropped when police evidence collapsed under scrutiny .

The images from that day—of workers beaten, kettled, and pursued—became emblematic of a government determined to break the National Union of Mineworkers and reshape the balance of power between labour and the state.

Why This Inquiry Matters

1. A Pattern of State Power Without Accountability

As Kevin Horne, one of the miners arrested at Orgreave, put it: “This was state‑sponsored organisation against the miners and our livelihoods.” His words echo a long‑held belief among mining communities: that Orgreave was not a policing failure but a deliberate, coordinated strategy to crush the strike and intimidate workers nationwide .

2. Media Collusion and the Battle for Narrative

John Dunn, another miner arrested during the strike, highlighted the role of the press: “The mass media colluded with the Tories by lying in their headlines and reports… or not reporting it at all.” The inquiry offers an opportunity to examine how public understanding of Orgreave was shaped—and distorted—by selective reporting and political pressure.

3. Destruction of Evidence

Perhaps most troubling is the revelation that police have recently destroyed material relevant to the inquiry. Kate Flannery of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign warned that this is not simply a matter of the past: “This is of great public interest and concern and is about a government who actively worked against its own population and handed the police paramilitary powers and destroyed an industry in the process.”

If evidence has been destroyed, it raises profound questions about institutional culture, transparency, and the willingness of authorities to obstruct accountability even decades later.

The Human Cost: Trauma, Community, and the Long Shadow of 1984

For many miners and their families, Orgreave was not an isolated event but part of a wider campaign that devastated communities. The closure of pits, the criminalisation of trade unionists, and the economic collapse of mining towns left scars that remain visible today.

Solidarity recognises that trauma is not only physical. It is generational, communal, and political. The inquiry must therefore address not only what happened on the day but the broader context of state hostility toward organised labour.

What Workers Need From This Inquiry

Transparency

The inquiry must have full access to surviving records, police operational plans, and government communications. Any obstruction must be treated as a matter of public concern.

Accountability

If wrongdoing is established—whether by individual officers, senior commanders, or government officials—there must be consequences. Justice delayed must not become justice denied.

Recognition

The miners who were vilified, beaten, and falsely accused deserve formal acknowledgement of the wrongs committed against them.

Reform

Orgreave is not simply a historical event. It is a warning. The inquiry must inform modern policing practices, ensuring that no government can again deploy police as a political weapon against workers.

Solidarity’s Position

As a union committed to justice, dignity, and democratic accountability, Solidarity welcomes the launch of this inquiry. We stand with the miners, their families, and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign in demanding a full, fearless examination of the events of 1984.

The struggle for truth is part of a broader struggle for a society where working people are not treated as enemies of the state. Orgreave is not only about the past—it is about the future of policing, protest, and workers’ rights in Britain.

By Pat Harrington

Understanding the 2026 Changes to UK Employment Rights Act

The law has shifted: since late 2025–early 2026 Parliament has repealed large parts of the Trade Union Act and introduced the Employment Rights Act reforms that simplify ballot and picket rules, extend mandates and strengthen dismissal protection for strike participants, while separate April changes alter statutory sick pay and entitlement timing — all of which materially change the risks and costs for workers in the UK.

Plain statement of what changed

Repeal and simplification of 2016 Trade Union Act provisions: The government removed many of the extra reporting and ballot constraints introduced in 2016, restoring simpler statutory requirements for unions and ballots. Key repeal and simplification measures took effect on 18 February 2026.
Industrial‑action ballot and notice rules: Ballots remain required and must follow statutory form and notice rules, but the support thresholds for important public services (the 40% rule) were removed and the mandate period for action was extended to 12 months for ballots opened on/after 18 February 2026. Turnout and basic ballot transparency remain legally required.
Picketing law and supervision: The statutory requirement to appoint a named picketing supervisor was removed; the updated Code of Practice on Picketing reflects these changes and was revised to align with the Employment Rights Act. The code still requires peaceful conduct and recommends stewarding and safety arrangements.
Protection from dismissal for taking protected industrial action: From 18 February 2026 dismissal for participating in protected industrial action is treated more robustly; the previous short‑term limits on protection were removed so that dismissal related to protected action is more likely to be automatically unfair under the new framework.
Certification Officer reporting and investigatory powers: The additional annual‑return reporting requirements about industrial action and some political‑expenditure reporting were repealed, narrowing the Certification Officer’s mandatory reporting fields and publicity powers.
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and entitlement timing (April changes): From 6 April 2026 (part of the April package) SSP entitlement timing and the lower‑earnings threshold were reformed: SSP is payable from the first day of sickness once entitlement conditions are met, and statutory rates have been uprated in recent years (check GOV.UK for the current weekly rate).

Direct legal impacts on workers

Greater legal cover for striking workers: Stronger dismissal protection reduces the legal risk of being sacked for taking protected action. This shifts the balance of power in disputes.
Easier to sustain campaigns: 12‑month mandates mean unions can lawfully plan longer campaigns without immediate re‑balloting, increasing bargaining leverage.
Lower formal barriers for public‑service ballots: Removing the 40% threshold makes lawful action more achievable where a majority of votes cast support action.
Practical responsibilities remain: Removal of the picket supervisor box does not remove the need for organised stewarding, safety planning, or legal compliance on picket lines; unions must still follow the Code of Practice.
Financial and health‑leave effects: SSP timing and eligibility reforms change cash flow for sick and striking workers; uprated weekly rates help some, but removal of waiting days and LEL changes alter who receives SSP and when. Workers on low pay remain vulnerable and will need strike‑fund and hardship planning.

By Pat Harrington

Sources: GOV.UK Plan to Make Work Pay timeline; Acas guidance on the Employment Rights Act 2025; GOV.UK guidance on ballots and picketing; Certification Officer materials; GOV.UK SSP pages.

Advocating Change: Insights from Solidarity’s 2026 Annual Meeting

Solidarity’s 2026 AGM combined procedural clarity with emotional intelligence and a renewed commitment to trauma‑informed, member‑centred trade unionism. Chaired by David Kerr and guided by General Secretary Patrick Harrington, the union set out a bold, practical agenda for the year ahead.

Setting the Scene

The 2026 Annual General Meeting of Solidarity Union opened in Edinburgh with a sense of grounded purpose. The room—wood‑panelled was arranged with care: the camera positioned for accurate minute‑taking, the banner placed thoughtfully and seating adjusted so that David Kerr, chairing the meeting, could manage the flow of contributions with ease. Members joined both in person and online, a reminder of Solidarity’s commitment to hybrid democracy and accessibility.

The atmosphere was steady and comradely. People arrived with papers tucked under their arms, nodding greetings, settling into chairs. Online participants appeared in the corner of the screen, equally present, equally valued. It was a meeting shaped by the union’s ethos: practical, humane, and attentive to the realities of working people.

Opening and Financial Overview

Chair David Kerr opened the meeting, confirmed quorum, and handed the substantive business to General Secretary Patrick Harrington, whose report was characteristically transparent and precise.

Patrick emphasised that while the union is financially stable, its sustainability depends on membership dues and unpredictable case‑related donations. The financial report was accepted without challenge.

Representation, Growth, and the Year’s Work

Solidarity continues to grow steadily, gaining one to two new members each week, many of them careworkers, nurses and midwives navigating increasingly complex workplace pressures. The union’s model—empowering reps to manage their own cases with support from the centre—remains one of its strengths.

Patrick and Glen Nicklasson (our President) both noted the introduction of new workplace visitation rights, expanding the union’s ability to support members directly. He also welcomed the Labour government’s decision to abolish union fees to the Certification Office, easing administrative burdens and recognising the value of union transparency.

Motions and Debates

The AGM’s motions reflected the union’s core commitments: fairness, trauma‑informed practice, and principled advocacy.

Template Resources for Grievances and Disciplinaries

Patrick proposed creating a suite of standardised tools—template letters, checklists, step‑by‑step guides—to support members facing grievances, disciplinaries, or GDPR requests. These will be published on the union website and reviewed quarterly. The motion passed unanimously.

Challenging the Five‑Day Appeal Deadline

The union resolved to challenge the widespread but legally baseless five‑day appeal window in disciplinary procedures. Patrick and David Andrews argued for a minimum of 14 days, especially for members with trauma, disabilities, or limited access to representation. The motion passed with strong support.

Embedding Trauma‑Informed and Equality‑Conscious Principles

A major motion committed Solidarity to embedding trauma‑informed practice in all grievance and disciplinary work. This includes:

Predictability and transparency
Emotional safety
Reasonable adjustments as standard
Flexible deadlines
Supportive meeting formats

The union will develop model standards and training for reps.

Congratulating the Certification Office on 50 Years

The AGM formally congratulated the Certification Office on its 50th anniversary, recognising its role in maintaining transparency and independence in the trade union movement.

Welcoming Employment Rights Reforms — With Caveats

The union welcomed the Labour government’s new employment protections—day‑one rights, restrictions on exploitative practices, and stronger union safeguards. But Patrick and other speakers stressed the need for:

Better enforcement
Expanded collective bargaining
Stronger protections for precarious workers

Solidarity reaffirmed its political independence.

Solidarity with the Birmingham Refuse Workers

The AGM expressed full solidarity with Birmingham’s refuse workers, who are resisting unsafe and unfair changes to their working conditions. Solidarity has supported the dispute through publicity and donations, while navigating legal constraints around picketing.

Marking the Centenary of the 1926 General Strike

David Kerr proposed a motion honouring the 1926 General Strike whcih passed unanimously. Patrick framed it not as a failure but as a warning: when capital squeezes too hard, workers know how to strike back.

Constitutional Reform

Members approved a revised constitution designed to improve clarity, accessibility, and legal robustness. A key amendment clarified that:

Legal support is provided at the General Secretary’s discretion with a right of appeal to our Executive Council
Reps must be protected from coercion or undue pressure to pursue cases they judge unwise (passed by amendment from Graham)

This reform ensures that union resources are used strategically and ethically.

Casework and Campaigns

Patrick reported a rise in disability discrimination cases, particularly around absence management and performance procedures. Other cases involved redundancy disputes, breaches of the ACAS code, and Equality Act violations.

Campaigns this year include:

Buy UK Goods
Enforcement of the Equality Act, especially in the insurance sector
Ongoing work on well‑being and workplace culture

Patrick outlined the union’s tribunal strategy: support initial claims, but discourage weak cases that drain resources and offer little chance of success. Only strong cases will be taken to a Tribunal.

Closing Reflections from the General Secretary

Patrick closed the AGM with a speech that captured the emotional heart of union work. His remarks are reproduced in full:

Accomplishment, Happiness, and the Power of Union Work

Closing remarks delivered by General Secretary Patrick Harrington

Brothers and Sisters,

Let’s talk about something we don’t celebrate enough: the joy of getting things done. The deep, human satisfaction that comes from rolling up our sleeves, facing a challenge, and saying, “We made that happen.”

Accomplishment isn’t a luxury. It’s a need. It’s what keeps us moving, keeps us hopeful, keeps us connected to one another. When we achieve something — especially something hard — we feel it in our bones. That spark of pride. That lift in the chest. That sense that the world is a little fairer because we acted.

And that, comrades, is exactly what union work gives us.

Every time we win a case, every time we protect a member, every time we force an employer to think twice — that’s accomplishment. Real accomplishment. Not the empty targets and KPIs management throws at people. Not the hollow “wellbeing initiatives” that never touch the real issues. I’m talking about meaningful victories that change lives.

When a member walks into a meeting terrified and walks out supported — that’s accomplishment. When a workplace becomes safer because we refused to look away — that’s accomplishment. When someone keeps their job, keeps their dignity, keeps their rights — that’s accomplishment.

And we don’t do it alone. We do it together.

That’s why it feels so good. Because union accomplishment isn’t individual glory. It’s collective strength. It’s the knowledge that when we stand shoulder to shoulder, we can move mountains. We can take on employers bigger than us, systems stacked against us, and still come out stronger.

Our work gives us satisfaction because it matters. It has weight. It has consequence. It leaves the world better than we found it.

So let’s carry that energy into the year ahead.

Let’s take pride in what we’ve achieved — and hunger for what’s still to come. Let’s remember that every victory, big or small, feeds that deep human need to build, to protect, to improve.

And let’s never forget: When we accomplish things together, we don’t just win — we grow stronger, happier, and more united.

Thank you, comrades.

Report from Maria Camara

When “Following the Process” Isn’t Enough: Lessons from Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

There are tribunal cases that feel like technical disputes about procedure.
And then there are cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd — cases that expose the gap between what an organisation thinks it is doing and what an employee is actually experiencing.

A disabled employee.
A supermarket chain.
An absence policy.

And a reminder that the law cares far less about tidy paperwork than it does about lived reality.

The Employee Behind the Case

Mr Taylor worked for Sainsbury’s and lived with ankylosing spondylitis, a long‑term inflammatory condition that can cause severe pain, stiffness and fatigue. It is a condition that fluctuates, and like many disabilities, it doesn’t map neatly onto rigid attendance expectations.

He raised concerns about:

how his absence management was handled
how working hours were allocated
how reasonable adjustments were considered, implemented, and reviewed

On paper, everything looked reassuringly compliant.

✔ Occupational health referrals
✔ Adjustments discussed
✔ Policies in place

But tribunals don’t judge organisations on the neatness of their documentation.
They judge them on what actually happened.

And that’s where this case becomes instructive.

Where Things Began to Fray

1. Absence Triggers Applied Without Flexibility

Sainsbury’s had a standard absence policy with trigger points.
Nothing unusual there.

But Mr Taylor’s condition meant he was more likely to hit those triggers — not because of misconduct, but because of disability‑related flare‑ups.

The tribunal examined not the existence of the policy, but the rigidity with which it was applied.
A trigger point that is neutral on its face can become discriminatory in practice if managers fail to adjust it for someone whose disability makes absence more likely.

This is where many employers stumble:
they treat “consistency” as fairness, when the law requires individualisation.

2. Adjustments Discussed… But Not Embedded

The organisation did discuss adjustments.
But discussion is not the same as implementation.
And implementation is not the same as ongoing review.

The tribunal looked closely at:

whether adjustments were actually put in place
whether they were maintained
whether managers understood them
whether they were revisited when circumstances changed

A reasonable adjustment is not a one‑off event.
It is a living commitment.

3. Working Hours Expectations That Didn’t Reflect Reality

Mr Taylor’s condition affected his stamina and mobility.
Yet expectations around shift patterns and duties did not always reflect the limitations identified by occupational health.

This is a common organisational blind spot:
the gap between what HR agrees, what OH recommends, and what frontline managers actually do on the shop floor.

The tribunal paid attention to that gap.

The Legal Test Employers Forget

One of the most common refrains in tribunal litigation is:

“We followed the process.”

But that is not the legal test.

The tribunal asks two questions:

Did the employee face a disadvantage because of their disability?
Did the employer take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage?

Policies are written for the average employee.
Disability law requires employers to think beyond the average.

And that is where Sainsbury’s fell short.

Why This Case Matters

This case is not about bad faith.
It’s about rigidity — the quiet, procedural kind that creeps in when managers are under pressure, when policies are treated as scripts, and when “consistency” becomes a shield against Here’s a version that keeps the spine of the original but reframes it through that Patrick‑style, morally attentive lens — weighing the lessons for both sides of the employment relationship, and foregrounding judgement as a shared, legally consequential practice.

The biggest HR risks rarely come from having the wrong policy.
They come from applying the right policy as if people were identical units on a spreadsheet.

Absence triggers.
Bonus schemes.
Working‑hours expectations.
Return‑to‑work interviews.
Performance metrics.

On paper, these are neutral tools.
In practice, they can quietly — and sometimes catastrophically — disadvantage disabled employees when managers apply them without curiosity, flexibility or context.

From the employee’s side, the lesson is stark:
you can be doing everything “right” and still find yourself penalised by systems designed for an imaginary average worker.
Knowing your rights, flagging barriers early, and documenting the adjustments you need isn’t self‑advocacy as a favour to HR — it’s self‑protection in a landscape where the burden of explanation too often falls on the person already carrying the weight.

From the employer’s side, the message is even clearer:
the organisations that avoid tribunals aren’t the ones with the thickest policy binders.
They’re the ones with leaders who understand when the rules require:

judgement
nuance
humanity
and the courage to deviate from the script

Because good HR has never been about paperwork.
It’s about the quality of decision‑making in the moments where the policy doesn’t quite fit the person in front of you.

And cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s underline something many leaders still treat as optional:
judgement is not a soft skill.
It is a legal requirement — one that protects employees from harm and employers from the consequences of their own rigidity.

In other words: the law expects humanity.
And so should we.

By Pat Harrington

International Women’s Day 2026: Give To Gain — Building a Future Where Women’s Work Is Valued and Women’s Safety Is Non‑Negotiable

International Women’s Day has always carried a tension between celebration and struggle. In 2026, that tension feels sharper than ever. Across Britain, women are holding together the public realm—teaching, caring, cleaning, coordinating, healing—while navigating a labour market that still treats their safety, time, and expertise as expendable.

This year’s global theme, “Give To Gain,” is a reminder that progress is not a zero‑sum game. When women win, workplaces become safer, fairer, and more humane for everyone. When women’s rights are protected, entire communities gain stability. And when women organise, the whole labour movement becomes stronger.

For Solidarity, “Give To Gain” is not a slogan. It is a description of how collective power works.

🌿 The Work Women Give — and the Barriers They Face

Women’s labour is the backbone of Britain’s essential services, yet the conditions surrounding that labour remain structurally unequal. Women continue to face:

Persistent pay gaps, especially in feminised sectors where low wages are treated as an inevitability rather than a political choice.
Precarious contracts that punish pregnancy, caring responsibilities, and disability.
Workplace harassment and institutional minimisation, where reporting systems are opaque, slow, or actively hostile.
Cuts to public services that shift unpaid care back onto women, particularly working‑class women, migrant women, and women of colour.

These are not isolated problems. They are the architecture of inequality. And they are maintained by employers who rely on women’s willingness to “give” without demanding anything in return.

🔧 Union Power: Where Giving Becomes Collective Gain

The labour movement has always understood that solidarity is reciprocal. When workers stand together, each person’s contribution strengthens the whole. This is the heart of “Give To Gain”—the idea that collective investment produces collective liberation.

Across Solidarity branches, women have shown what this looks like in practice:

Cleaners organising for secure contracts, transforming unstable jobs into dignified, predictable work.
Care workers demanding safe staffing levels, protecting themselves and the people they support.
University staff challenging toxic cultures, refusing to let prestige mask institutional harm.
Migrant women workers unionising, asserting their right to visibility, safety, and fair treatment.

These victories were not gifted by employers. They were won through meetings, strike ballots, WhatsApp groups, and the quiet courage of refusing to accept the unacceptable.

When women give their time, their insight, and their solidarity to the union, the entire movement gains strength.

🔥 2026’s Challenge: Turning Solidarity Into Structural Change

This year, Solidarity is calling on all members—women and allies alike—to treat “Give To Gain” as a mandate for action.

1. Give your voice — gain safer workplaces

Support survivor‑centred reporting systems that remove the burden from individuals and place responsibility squarely on employers.

2. Give your backing — gain fair pay

Stand with women‑led campaigns for sectoral collective bargaining in care, retail, and hospitality.

3. Give your pressure — gain public services that work

Fight for properly funded childcare, social care, and health services. Cuts always land hardest on women.

4. Give your solidarity — gain a movement that includes everyone

Ensure migrant women, disabled women, and women of colour are not just present but leading.

This is the political heart of “Give To Gain”: when we invest in women’s rights, we build a labour movement capable of transforming the conditions of work for all.

🌱 A Movement Rooted in History, Growing Toward Justice

International Women’s Day began in the labour movement—born from garment workers striking for safety, dignity, and the right to be heard. It was never meant to be apolitical. It was never meant to be polite.

Solidarity stands firmly in that lineage. We honour it not with nostalgia, but with organising.

✊ To Every Woman in Solidarity

You give more than most people will ever see.
You hold workplaces together.
You carry the emotional weight of systems that should support you but too often fail.

This year, we say clearly:

You should not have to give endlessly without gaining safety, respect, and fair treatment in return.

International Women’s Day 2026 is a reminder that liberation is collective work—and that unions remain one of the few places where that work can be won.

Solidarity means all of us, or none of us..

By Pat Harrington

Whistleblowing at Work: What This Month’s Cases Tell Us About Power, Protection and the Limits of the Law

From post‑employment retaliation to managers hiding behind “innocent” decision‑makers, this month’s whistleblowing judgments reveal a legal landscape still struggling to keep pace with the realities workers face. These cases show how employers manoeuvre, how tribunals interpret the law, and why collective strength remains the surest protection for anyone who speaks up.

Introduction

Whistleblowing law in Britain has always been a patchwork: some protections strong in theory, others riddled with loopholes, and all of it dependent on tribunals willing to look beneath the surface of an employer’s story. The latest run of cases shows just how contested this terrain remains. Workers continue to face retaliation long after their employment ends; managers can escape liability by hiding behind “innocent” decision‑makers; and the courts themselves are split on how far whistleblowing detriment law should stretch.

Below is a worker‑centred breakdown of the key cases — what happened, what the courts decided, and what it means for anyone who raises concerns in the workplace.

Case Summaries

1. Post‑employment retaliation still counts: Day v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust

This case confirms something workers have long known: retaliation doesn’t stop just because your employment does. Dr Day argued that statements the Trust made after settling an earlier whistleblowing case amounted to detriment. The tribunal initially said post‑employment acts weren’t covered — but the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed.

The EAT held that post‑employment detriments can fall within s.47B ERA when they’re closely tied to the employment relationship. As the document puts it, the statements were made “in the context of earlier tribunal proceedings about disclosures made during Dr Day’s employment” .

However, the Trust ultimately escaped liability because the tribunal found the statements weren’t materially influenced by his disclosures, but by “media scrutiny” and a desire to defend itself.

Worker takeaway:
Protection doesn’t end when the job does — but employers will still argue their motives were “something else.”

2. Persisting after an investigation can undermine protection: Argence‑Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management

Here, the worker raised concerns about a potentially fraudulent claim. After a full investigation found no fraud, he continued to accuse the company of wrongdoing. The tribunal held that his later statements were no longer protected because it was no longer “reasonable” for him to hold that belief.

He was dismissed for refusing a PIP and for continuing to allege fraud. The EAT agreed the dismissal wasn’t automatically unfair for whistleblowing — it was his behaviour, not the disclosures, that drove the decision.

But the tribunal had failed to consider whether the dismissal was unfair on ordinary grounds, especially the role of the appeal process. That part was sent back.

Worker takeaway:
Employers often weaponise “reasonableness” to shut down continued concerns. And once a PIP enters the picture, the narrative shifts fast.

3. The limits of Jhuti: decision‑makers vs manipulators in Henderson v GCRM

This case tackles a recurring problem: what happens when the person who fires you doesn’t know about your protected disclosures, but the manager feeding them information does?

The tribunal originally found the decision‑maker (R3) liable for detriment by dismissal, imputing the whistleblowing‑related motive of R2 (the line manager). The EAT said this was wrong. The Jhuti principle — looking behind the decision‑maker’s stated reason — applies to automatic unfair dismissal, not to detriment claims.

Applying Jhuti here would create “potentially unlimited liability on an innocent party” .

The s103A dismissal claim was sent back for reconsideration, but the detriment findings were overturned.

Worker takeaway:
Managers who manipulate processes may escape detriment liability unless the dismissal claim itself succeeds. The law still struggles to capture behind‑the‑scenes retaliation.

4. Dismissal can be a detriment: Rice v Wicked Vision & Barton Turns v Treadwell

These joined appeals deal with a long‑running legal contradiction: can a worker bring a detriment claim based on the dismissal itself?

The Court of Appeal said yes — not because it agreed with the earlier Osipov decision, but because it was bound by it. As the summary puts it, “It is plainly unsatisfactory that the construction of this legislation has now produced conflicting decisions at three levels of court” .

Both workers were allowed to proceed with detriment claims based on dismissal by co‑workers, with employers potentially liable via vicarious liability.

Worker takeaway:
The law is messy, contradictory and ripe for reform — but for now, workers can pursue detriment claims even where the detriment is dismissal.

5. Secondment isn’t employment: Bank of Africa v Hassani

This case is a reminder that employers will use technicalities to avoid responsibility. The worker was employed by BCME but seconded to the Bank of Africa. The tribunal wrongly found her employment had transferred, making the Bank liable for dismissal and detriment.

The EAT overturned this. The secondment agreement was clear: she remained employed by BCME. That meant:

The Bank couldn’t be liable for unfair dismissal.
Detriment claims needed proper analysis under s.43K ERA (extended definition of worker), which the tribunal hadn’t done.
The tribunal also wrongly treated all respondents as jointly responsible — a “composite approach” the law doesn’t allow.

Worker takeaway:
Seconded workers fall into a legal grey zone. Employers exploit that ambiguity, and tribunals often get it wrong.

Conclusion

Across these cases, a pattern emerges: whistleblowing law remains a battleground where employers test the limits, tribunals disagree, and workers are left navigating a system that often feels designed to trip them up. Whether it’s post‑employment retaliation, managerial manipulation, or technical arguments about employment status, the message is clear — legal protection is only ever part of the story.

Solidarity, collective action and union support remain the real safeguards for workers who speak up. The law may shift, but our responsibility to defend each other does not.

By Pat Harrington

Reform UK signals plans to roll back key employment rights and worker protection

Solidarity is a non‑party‑political trade union. We are not affiliated to any political party and we don’t maintain a political fund. Our responsibility is to keep members informed when political proposals—by any party—could affect your rights, your security, or your working conditions.

Overview

Recent public statements from Reform UK’s leadership outline a programme of sweeping deregulation. These proposals include repealing new employment rights, removing protections for renters, and reversing measures designed to strengthen job security.

Union leaders across sectors have raised concerns that these plans would significantly weaken workers’ rights and shift power further towards employers.

What Reform UK says it intends to remove

Based on their own statements, Reform UK is proposing to:

Scrap new employment‑rights rules
Remove new protections for renters
Repeal regulations designed to improve job security
Roll back environmental and industrial regulations they describe as “daft” or burdensome

Their argument is that these rules “kill jobs” and “hinder growth,” and that removing them would reduce inflation and lower bills.

Rights and protections at risk

Union leaders have warned that the following rights could be lost if these proposals were implemented:

1. Ban on fire‑and‑rehire practices

New laws preventing employers from dismissing staff and rehiring them on worse terms could be scrapped.

2. Protections against exploitative zero‑hour contracts

Rules designed to curb the most abusive forms of insecure work may be removed.

3. Stronger unfair‑dismissal protections

Recent improvements that extend protection from unfair dismissal could be rolled back.

4. Parental leave and sick‑pay rights

Opposition parties and unions warn that hard‑won rights in these areas may be weakened or removed.

5. Local government pension security

Reform UK has said it would block new entrants to local government pension schemes and consolidate them into a sovereign wealth fund—raising concerns about long‑term retirement security.

6. Housing protections for renters

Rolling back new rental protections would affect millions of working people who rely on secure, safe housing.

Why this matters for members

If enacted, these proposals could affect:

Your job security
Your protection from unfair dismissal
Your rights around sick pay and parental leave
Your ability to avoid exploitative contracts
Your pension prospects
Your housing stability

These are not abstract issues—they shape the daily lives of working people.

Solidarity’s position

Solidarity does not support or oppose political parties.
Our duty is to:

Inform members about political proposals that may affect their rights
Defend and advance workplace protections
Ensure members understand the implications of changes being proposed

We will continue to monitor developments and provide clear, factual updates.

By Maria Camara

EAT Ruling: Legal Responsibilities After Employee Transfers

This is about power and fairness at work. When staff transfer under TUPE, employers can’t shrug off pay gaps that fall along racial lines. The recent EAT decision in Mr Alpha Anne & Others v Great Ormond Street Hospital makes that plain: once the employer becomes you, you own the problem — and you must justify any unequal treatment quickly or face liability.

What happened in plain terms

Who: Cleaners at Great Ormond Street Hospital who transferred from a contractor (OCS) to the Trust under TUPE.
What: They were paid the London Living Wage under OCS, while comparable directly employed NHS staff were on higher Agenda for Change (AfC) rates. Most transferred staff were from BAME backgrounds; most directly employed comparators were white.
Claim: The transferred workers said the Trust’s failure to put them on AfC pay amounted to indirect race discrimination.
Outcome: The EAT split the claim. Pre‑transfer complaints failed; post‑transfer complaints succeeded.

Why the pre‑transfer claims failed

Before the transfer the workers were employed by OCS. The EAT followed established law that a client cannot normally be sued for pay set by an independent contractor, even if the client has influence. The Trust had not actively prevented OCS from paying more, so it was not responsible for pay decisions made while OCS was the employer. Bottom line: responsibility follows the employment contract — not the service relationship.

Why the post‑transfer claims succeeded

The moment the Trust became the employer, the legal picture changed. From the transfer date the Trust was responsible for the transferred workers’ terms and conditions. The EAT found the continued pay gap after transfer did amount to indirect discrimination because:

The pay disparity disproportionately affected workers from a protected racial group; and
The Trust failed to show that delaying equalisation was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The court said the Trust should have moved to equal pay on or shortly after the transfer. A delay needed a strong, justifiable reason — which the Trust did not provide.

TUPE, harmonisation and variation clauses

TUPE normally prevents employers from imposing changes to terms and conditions simply to harmonise pay. But there’s an important exception: valid contractual variation clauses. If a transferring contract contains a lawful clause allowing reasonable changes, those changes can be implemented after transfer without breaching TUPE. In this case, the Claimants’ contracts included such a clause, so harmonisation to AfC rates was legally possible.

Practical rule: check the transferring contracts. If they permit reasonable variations, harmonisation may be lawful — but it still must not produce or perpetuate unlawful discrimination.

Practical implications for employers and unions

This decision forces employers to act proactively when staff transfer in under TUPE. The practical steps are straightforward but urgent:

Audit pay and terms: Compare the terms of incoming staff with existing employees in the same roles.
Check demographics: Identify whether any pay or terms disparity disproportionately affects a protected group.
Assess justification: If disparities exist, decide whether delaying or refusing harmonisation can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Be ready to prove it.
Review contracts: Look for valid variation clauses in transferring contracts that might lawfully permit harmonisation.
Document decisions: Keep clear records of the analysis and the reasons for any delay or differential treatment.
Get advice early: Where disparities are identified during due diligence, seek legal and equality advice before the transfer completes.

Employers often lack reliable demographic data. That’s a practical barrier — but it’s not an excuse. If you can’t show the disparity isn’t discriminatory, the law will treat unexplained disparities as suspect.

What this means for organising and collective action

This ruling hands a clear tool to workers and unions: transfers are a moment to press for equality. When a contractor’s workforce moves in-house, that’s the time to demand parity — not months later. Unions should:

Push for full transparency in pre‑transfer due diligence.
Use the transfer window to press for immediate harmonisation where pay gaps track protected characteristics.
Hold employers to account for any delay and demand written, proportionate justifications.
Support members to gather evidence of disparate impact and to raise claims where employers fail to act.

Conclusion and clear next steps

If you’re an employer: don’t wait. Audit, document, justify, and where necessary equalise — quickly. The cost of delay is legal exposure and damaged trust.

If you’re a worker or union organiser: treat TUPE transfers as a frontline for equality. Demand parity at the point of transfer. If employers stall, organise — assemblies, petitions, and legal challenge are all tools to force action.

This case is a reminder: when workers move, responsibility moves with them. Employers who ignore that responsibility will be held to account. Workers who organise around it can win real, immediate change.

By Patrick Harrington

Unfair dismissal – A quiet bombshell

Last week the government quietly dropped a (little) bombshell, by adding an ‘Unfair Dismissal Factsheet’ to this page on the Employment Rights Act 2025.

The government’s quiet publication of a new Unfair Dismissal Factsheet marks a significant shift in the UK’s employment landscape, signalling the most substantial expansion of dismissal protections in decades. The update, added without fanfare to the Employment Rights Act 2025 factsheet collection, confirms that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will fall from two years to six months, and the long‑standing cap on compensatory awards will be abolished.

The changes amount to a fundamental recalibration of power in the workplace. Reducing the qualifying period to six months brings millions more workers within the scope of unfair dismissal protection far earlier in their employment. The removal of the compensation cap—currently the lower of £118,223 or 52 weeks’ pay—means tribunals will be able to award losses in full, a shift that will be particularly consequential for higher‑earning employees and for employers accustomed to predictable financial exposure. This is not a minor technical tweak; it reshapes the risk profile of every dismissal decision.

What is striking is the government’s insistence that no further consultation will take place. Ministers describe the measures as the product of “constructive, government‑convened conversations” between unions and business groups, but the quiet publication of the factsheet—rather than a ministerial announcement—suggests an awareness of the political sensitivity. Employers now face a compressed window to overhaul probation policies, performance management processes, and dismissal procedures before the 2027 commencement date.

For workers, the reforms promise earlier security, stronger bargaining power, and a meaningful check on one‑sided flexibility. For employers, they represent a decisive end to the era in which the two‑year qualifying period acted as a buffer against litigation risk. The factsheet may have been published quietly, but its implications are anything but: this is a structural shift in UK employment law, and organisations that fail to prepare now will feel the consequences later.

By Maria Camara