Single‑Sex Spaces and the EHRC Draft Code: Law, Balance, and the Politics of Clarity

Introduction

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated Draft Code of Practice for Services has now been laid before Parliament. Although the Code applies formally to service providers rather than employers, its implications reach far wider. In a political climate where questions of sex, gender, and rights are often weaponised, the Code attempts something unfashionable: clarity.

This article explores what the Code says, why it matters, and how a recent tribunal case — LS v NHS England (2026) — illustrates the legal principles in practice.

What the Draft Code Is — and Isn’t

The Code provides guidance on how the Equality Act 2010 applies to:

Service providers
Public functions
Associations

It does not apply to employers (yet), though the EHRC has confirmed that updated employer guidance is forthcoming.

A statutory code — but not law

The Code is issued under section 14 of the Equality Act 2006. This means:

It is not itself law
Courts and tribunals must take it into account where relevant
It carries significant persuasive authority
It explains the law; it does not create new legal obligations

This distinction matters. The Code is a tool for clarity, not a vehicle for policy‑making.

Why the update?

The new draft incorporates over a decade of legal developments, including:

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
Case law refining the definition of disability
Case law clarifying the threshold for philosophical belief protection
The Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (2025)

The definition of “sex”

In For Women Scotland, the Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, “sex” refers to biological sex, not self‑identified gender. The EHRC explicitly cites this judgment as a reason for updating the Code.

This is foundational. It anchors the Code’s approach to single‑sex services in biological reality, not self‑identification.

Single‑Sex Services: What the Code Clarifies

Under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act, organisations may lawfully provide:

Single‑sex services
Separate‑sex services
Mixed‑sex services

The updated Code expands guidance on how to determine whether a single‑sex service is proportionate and justifiable.

The EHRC recommends that organisations:

Record their reasoning for providing (or not providing) a single‑sex service
Maintain a clear policy on how single‑sex services will be delivered
Consider the impact on all protected groups, not just one
Ensure decisions are evidence‑based, not ideological

Parliament now has 40 days to consider the Code. If no objection is raised, it will come into force.

Why This Matters for Employers Too

Although the Code is aimed at service providers, the principles inevitably spill over into employment contexts — especially around:

Toilets
Changing rooms
Accommodation
Privacy‑sensitive facilities

Employers will need to conduct the same kind of balancing exercises the Code describes. The EHRC has already said employer‑specific guidance is on the way.

Case Study: LS v NHS England (2026)

A recent employment tribunal judgment provides a real‑world example of how these principles apply.

The Facts

The employer had a policy allowing trans women to use female‑only facilities. The claimant — a female Muslim employee — objected and brought claims of:

Indirect sex discrimination
Indirect religious discrimination
Disability discrimination
Harassment related to sex
Harassment related to philosophical belief (gender‑critical)

The Tribunal’s Key Findings

The tribunal held that:

1. The policy amounted to indirect sex discrimination

Women, and particularly Muslim women, were placed at a disadvantage. Less discriminatory alternatives existed — such as providing alternative or gender‑neutral facilities for trans staff.

2. The policy amounted to harassment

The claimant’s gender‑critical belief is protected under the Equality Act. The employer’s approach created an environment that violated her dignity.

3. The employer’s balancing exercise was inadequate

The organisation consulted:

LGBT networks
Disability networks
BAME networks

But did not consult women’s networks or faith‑based groups.

This selective consultation was fatal to the policy’s legality.

4. The decision is not binding

As a first‑instance judgment, it does not create precedent. But it aligns with a growing body of case law emphasising the need for careful, documented balancing.

The Principle: Balance, Not Ideology

The Equality Act protects both:

Sex
Gender reassignment

Neither characteristic automatically overrides the other. The law requires proportionality, not absolutism.

Single‑sex spaces exist for reasons of:

Privacy
Dignity
Safety
Cultural and religious observance

They are not acts of exclusion but of legitimate protection.

The tribunal’s criticism of NHS England is instructive: You cannot claim to balance rights if you only listen to one side.

Reactions: A Divided Landscape

The updated Code has prompted strong reactions across the political and organisational spectrum.

EHRC’s position

The EHRC has framed the Code as:

A neutral, legally grounded document
A tool to help organisations navigate competing rights
A response to significant legal developments, not a political intervention

The Commission emphasises that clarity benefits everyone — service providers, users, and courts.

Women’s and gender‑critical groups

Many women’s organisations and gender‑critical campaigners have welcomed:

The reaffirmation of biological sex in law
Stronger guidance on lawful single‑sex services
The emphasis on documentation and proportionality

They argue that the Code restores confidence in the Equality Act’s original intent.

LGBT and trans‑advocacy organisations

Some LGBT groups have expressed concern that:

The Code may lead to more exclusion of trans people from services
Providers may adopt over‑cautious or restrictive policies
The emphasis on biological sex could undermine existing inclusion practices

They have called for close monitoring of how the Code is applied in practice.

Employers and unions

Many employers and unions are seeking:

Clearer guidance on workplace facilities
Practical examples of lawful policies
Support in conducting balancing exercises that respect all protected groups

The LS v NHS England case has sharpened awareness of the risks of incomplete consultation.

What Organisations Must Do

Whether you are a service provider or employer, the message is clear:

1. Document your reasoning

If challenged, you must show your decision‑making process.

2. Consult widely

Not just LGBT groups — but women’s groups, faith groups, and others affected.

3. Provide alternatives

Gender‑neutral facilities can reduce conflict without undermining single‑sex provision.

4. Respect philosophical belief

Gender‑critical views are protected under the Equality Act.

5. Avoid blanket policies

The law requires case‑by‑case proportionality, not ideological commitments.

A Moment for Clarity

The EHRC’s draft Code is not a political statement. It is an attempt to bring legal clarity to a highly contested area.

In a debate often dominated by slogans, the Code insists on:

Evidence
Reasoning
Documentation
Balance

That alone makes it significant.

Conclusion

The updated EHRC Code and the LS v NHS England judgment together mark a shift toward greater legal clarity on single‑sex spaces. They reaffirm that equality is not achieved by erasing difference but by recognising it responsibly.

For unions, employers, and service providers, the task is to apply these principles with care — balancing rights, consulting widely, and documenting decisions. In doing so, they uphold not only the law but the deeper principle of fairness that underpins it.

By Maria Camara

Win Time Back: Why the Four‑Day Week Is a Pro‑Worker, Pro‑Productivity Reform

The FT Weekend (31 January 2026) had a fascinating feature on the rise of the unofficial four-day week. The article documented how hybrid working has enabled many employees to quietly trim or reallocate Friday hours—creating an informal four‑day week visible in leisure and consumer patterns—and warns that without collective bargaining this grassroots shift will remain unequal, precarious and vulnerable to employer pushback.

As informal Friday absences spread, the task for unions is to convert piecemeal, individual time‑reclaims into collective, negotiated rights: a 32‑hour week with no loss of pay, workload redesign and protections for shift and frontline workers.

The argument for a four‑day week is no longer speculative.

The UK’s 2022 four‑day week pilot reframed a debate that had long felt theoretical into something practical and persuasive. Sixty‑one organisations and roughly 2,900 employees tested a 100:80:100 model — full pay for 80 percent of the time, with an expectation of maintaining 100 percent productivity — and the headline results were striking: 71% of employees reported lower burnout, 39% reported less stress, sick days fell by 65%, and staff leaving dropped by 57%, while average reported revenue did not decline (+1.4% for firms reporting financials). For many participants the experiment didn’t feel like a gamble so much as a correction: when employers treated the change as a redesign project rather than a simple scheduling tweak, people slept better, felt healthier, and turned up more able to do the job.

Those headline numbers are only half the story. Follow‑up academic analyses and multi‑site studies point to the mechanisms behind the gains: better sleep, improved physical health, and stronger perceived work ability, all of which help sustain productivity. Crucially, the benefits are conditional. Where pay was maintained, managers were given time and tools to redesign workflows, and organisations measured outcomes, productivity held steady or nudged up and wellbeing improved. Where employers merely squeezed five days into four, intensity rose and the gains evaporated. The practical lesson is clear: a shorter week can deliver healthier, more engaged people and resilient performance, but only if implemented with intention, measurement, and a willingness to rethink how work gets done.

For employers thinking about a trial, the evidence suggests a pragmatic blueprint: run a time‑bounded pilot (six months is sensible), keep pay unchanged, invest in workload redesign and manager coaching, and track baseline and follow‑up metrics on sickness, turnover, productivity, revenue, and employee wellbeing. Expect equity and service‑delivery questions to require bespoke solutions for shift and customer‑facing roles. When those trade‑offs are handled up front, the four‑day week looks less like a novelty and more like a durable organisational design choice that improves retention, reduces absence, and preserves — often improves — business performance.

The shift from five days to four is not a magic bullet; it is a management challenge that rewards planning. Implemented as a redesign rather than a compression, it becomes a lever for better health, stronger engagement, and sustainable productivity.

Advantages for workers are straightforward. A shorter week gives time for family and unpaid care, reduces chronic stress, and improves sleep and recovery. It widens access to leisure, education and civic life, which matters in towns where local services and community ties are vital. Crucially, when won through collective bargaining, a four‑day week protects workers from individual risk: no one is disciplined or penalised for taking back time.

Advantages for employers are practical and measurable. Organisations that redesign work to fit a shorter week often cut meeting bloat, clarify priorities and shift to output‑based assessment. The result is higher employee engagement, lower turnover and reduced recruitment costs. For public services and local councils, better‑rested staff mean fewer sick days and more consistent service delivery. Employers also gain reputational advantage in tight labour markets.

That said, the reform is not automatic. Without union negotiation, the “unofficial” four‑day week becomes a two‑tier system: those in flexible, white‑collar roles benefit while shift, care and retail workers are left behind. Work intensification is a real risk if hours are simply compressed without redesign. That is why unions must insist on workload clauses, independent evaluation of pilots, and bespoke arrangements for shift and frontline roles.

How unions should frame the demand: make the core ask 32 hours for 40 hours’ pay, secured through collective agreements that mandate pilot evaluation, public reporting and protections for part‑time and precarious staff. Use employer evidence of retention and reduced absence to counter short‑term cost objections, and insist that productivity gains come from smarter work design, not unpaid overtime.

The four‑day week is a lever for broader labour renewal: it strengthens bargaining power, modernises job design, and returns time to communities. For workers and unions across the UK, the choice is clear — organise the quiet revolt into a collective victory so that time, like pay and safety, becomes a right, not a privilege.

By Patrick Harrington

AI, COVID and the Fight for Dignity at Work: Why a New Social Contract Is No Longer Optional

By Maria Camara

The pandemic shattered old assumptions about work. Artificial intelligence is now rewriting the rules entirely. Together, they’ve exposed a broken system — and opened the door to a fairer, more human future. For unions, the challenge is clear: defend workers’ rights in a world where the workplace is everywhere, and the pressure to give more for less has never been greater.

The Workplace Has Entered a New Era

The workplace has never been more fluid, more questioned, or more rapidly transformed than it is today. COVID cracked the old system open, and artificial intelligence is now reshaping what spills out. Together, these forces have pushed society into a new era — one where workers are renegotiating the value of their time, their labour, and their humanity.
This isn’t a small shift. It’s a cultural reset.

For unions like Solidarity, this moment isn’t just a challenge. It’s an opportunity to redefine what fairness looks like in the 21st century.

The Workplace Is No Longer a Place — It’s a Choice

Before the pandemic, work was defined by physical presence. Productivity was measured by visibility. The office was the centre of gravity.

Today, the workplace is a negotiation.

A “workplace” can be:

a kitchen table
a coworking space
a phone on the train
a hybrid schedule
a gig platform
a digital ecosystem powered by AI

Workers have discovered autonomy — and they’re not giving it back. Employers can no longer rely on presenteeism or outdated assumptions about loyalty. Flexibility is no longer a perk. It’s a baseline expectation.

COVID Didn’t Break the System — It Revealed It

The pandemic exposed truths that had been ignored for years:

wages weren’t keeping up with living costs
housing was already unaffordable
burnout was widespread
job security was fragile

When millions were forced home, they discovered something employers never expected: life outside of work is valuable.

People realised they had been organising their lives around work, rather than organising work around their lives. That revelation has permanently changed the social contract.

Younger Workers Aren’t Lazy — They’re Realists

Under-30 workers are often criticised for lacking “work ethic”. But the reality is brutally simple: the maths doesn’t work anymore.

When rent rises faster than wages, when savings are impossible, when pensions feel like fiction, working harder doesn’t lead to independence. It leads to exhaustion.

This generation isn’t rejecting work.
They’re rejecting exploitation.

They’re demanding what previous generations were promised but never fully received: stability, dignity, and a future worth planning for.

Enter AI: The Second Earthquake

If COVID was the first shock, AI is the aftershock that keeps reshaping the landscape.

AI is:

automating repetitive tasks
replacing certain roles
creating new types of jobs
changing the skills that matter
increasing productivity
reducing the need for human labour

The old promise — work hard and you’ll succeed — collapses even further when machines can work harder, faster, and cheaper than humans.

For unions, this is a critical moment. AI can empower workers — or it can be used to undermine them. The difference depends on who controls it.

AI Exposes the Flaws in the Old Work Philosophy

The traditional slogan said: work hard and you’ll succeed.
But in a world where AI can write reports, analyse data, generate designs, automate workflows, and replace entire departments, hard work alone is no longer enough.

The new reality is:
work smart, adapt fast, and protect your time.

Workers are no longer competing with each other. They’re competing with algorithms — and that changes everything.

Workers Are Reclaiming Their Time

AI has unintentionally strengthened a movement that COVID began: the movement toward valuing personal time.

When people see AI doing tasks that once consumed hours of their day, they naturally ask:
Why should I work 50 hours a week?
Why should exhaustion be a badge of honour?
Why should productivity require sacrifice?

AI proves that productivity doesn’t require human exhaustion.
It reveals how much of the old system was built on inefficiency, overwork, and outdated expectations.

Companies Are Losing Their Old Power

Before COVID and AI, companies relied on:

scarcity of jobs
worker fear
lack of alternatives
social pressure to work hard

Now:

remote work expanded options
AI increased efficiency
workers realised their time has value

The old system depended on people being too tired or too scared to question it.
That spell is broken.

Workers are no longer grateful just to have a job. They expect a job that respects them.

A New Social Contract Is Emerging

The future of work is being rewritten in real time. The new expectations include:

flexibility
autonomy
purpose
mental health
smart work
human creativity
fair pay
transparency
dignity

AI will continue to reshape industries, but it also highlights what humans do best: empathy, judgment, imagination, innovation, and relationship‑building.

These are the qualities no machine can replace — and the qualities unions must champion.

What This Means for Unions

For Solidarity and the wider labour movement, this moment demands boldness.

Workers need:

protections against algorithmic management
fair distribution of AI‑driven productivity gains
rights to disconnect
transparent pay structures
secure contracts
collective bargaining that includes digital and remote workplaces
training and upskilling that isn’t paid for out of workers’ pockets

The new social contract must be negotiated — not assumed.

The Bottom Line

COVID forced society to pause.
AI is forcing society to evolve.

Together, they’ve dismantled the old workplace and replaced it with something more flexible, more human, and more uncertain — but also full of possibility.

The workplace will never return to what it was before COVID. And with AI accelerating change, it shouldn’t.

The future belongs to those who work smart, protect their time, and refuse to trade their lives for breadcrumbs. And it belongs to unions willing to fight for a world where technology serves workers — not the other way around.

‘One to Four and Not One More’: The Islington Nursery Workers’ Strike and Why It Still Matters

1,343 words, 7 minutes read time.

In the spring of 1984, more than 150 low-paid nursery workers—nearly all of them women—walked out of their council-run workplaces in Islington and took to the picket lines. Their strike lasted 14 weeks. It was a battle for dignity, for the children in their care, and for the recognition that nursery work is skilled labour, deserving of decent conditions and fair pay.

Their demand was simple, powerful, and memorable: “One to four and not one more.” It was a call for a safe and manageable staff-to-child ratio. This slogan became a rallying cry not only for the strike itself but for a broader recognition of what nursery work entails and why it matters.

Now, over 40 years later, their story is being retold in a powerful new podcast series, Childcare Voices, produced by a team of childcare workers, trade unionists, and parents. The series gives the strikers the chance to tell their story in their own words—of how they organised, what they fought for, and what lessons remain for today’s nursery sector.

This article takes a closer look at the Islington nursery workers’ strike, the conditions that led to it, and why nursery workers—then and now—desperately need the power of collective organisation.

The Road to the Strike

In the early 1980s, Islington Council’s Children’s Day Centres were in crisis. These centres provided vital care for some of the borough’s most vulnerable children, but were chronically underfunded, dangerously understaffed, and neglected by the authorities. Nursery workers were expected to supervise too many children, often in unsafe environments, with inadequate resources and little recognition.

Despite these conditions, or perhaps because of them, nursery staff were deeply committed to their work. They weren’t striking to abandon their responsibilities—they were striking to uphold them.

As early years expert and strike participant Julia Manning-Morton put it, “We were fighting for better conditions for the children in our care as well as for ourselves. That’s just as important today as it was then.”

At the time, Islington Council was led by Margaret Hodge, who had come to power on a progressive platform promising to improve services, including children’s care. But the reality, as the workers soon found, didn’t match the rhetoric.

In response to unfulfilled promises and worsening conditions, the nursery workers—organised through the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE)—took a courageous decision. They walked out.

Fourteen Weeks of Solidarity

The strike quickly became a rallying point for others in the borough. Parents staged their own protests, including an overnight occupation of Islington Town Hall with their children. The Islington Gazette dubbed the action the “Sit In Babes Back Strike.”

The nursery workers also built alliances beyond the borough. Delegations of striking miners and their families visited Islington and stood in solidarity with the nursery workers. Arthur Scargill, then president of the National Union of Mineworkers, shared platforms with nursery workers at rallies.

A delegation of miners’ wives who came to meet the mayor of Islington refused to cross the nursery workers’ picket line. Instead, they had tea with the mayor on the steps of the Town Hall. It was a powerful moment of mutual respect between two groups of workers fighting different, but deeply connected, battles.

Support also spread across the council workforce. Eventually, 400 workers from other departments joined the strike in solidarity.

The nursery workers remained determined throughout. They weren’t just striking for better pay—they were fighting for the basic safety and wellbeing of the children they cared for every day.

The Outcome

After 14 weeks on strike, the workers achieved significant gains. The council agreed to a ratio of one nursery worker to every four and a half children—still short of the “one to four” demand, but a major improvement. Other changes were also secured, including commitments to better working conditions and staffing.

But the struggle didn’t end there. Just five years later, in 1989, nursery workers in Islington were forced to strike again—this time to defend the very gains they had previously won. Once again, staffing ratios and conditions were under threat.

These repeated struggles speak to a larger truth: victories won through collective action can be eroded if not defended. That’s why strong union organisation and active engagement remain essential.

Why Aren’t More Nursery Workers in Unions?

Despite the success of the Islington strike and the clear benefits of collective action, nursery workers today remain among the least-unionised parts of the public sector. Why?

First, many nursery workers—especially in private settings—are on precarious contracts. Part-time roles, casual hours, and limited job security make it harder to organise. It’s not uncommon for workers to be unaware that they even can join a union.

Second, there’s a persistent myth that caring work isn’t “real work.” This damaging notion suggests that childcare is a “natural” extension of femininity and therefore doesn’t require the same protections, training, or pay as other professions. This sexist narrative has kept pay low and discouraged organising.

Third, nursery settings are often small and dispersed. Without a concentrated workforce under one roof, it can be difficult to build momentum or share information about workplace rights and union membership.

Finally, there is sometimes a lack of confidence. Nursery staff may feel unsure about raising concerns, worried about reprisals, or simply overworked and exhausted. This is where unions can make all the difference.

Why Nursery Workers Should Be Unionised

Unions provide nursery workers with collective power, protection, and a voice.

When you’re in a union, you’re not alone. You have access to legal advice and support. You have the backing of experienced negotiators. You have the chance to push for better pay, better staffing, and better conditions—not just for yourself, but for your colleagues and the children you care for.

Unions also fight for the future of early years provision itself. As government austerity cuts continue to undermine public nurseries, and as private providers chase profit over quality, it is union members who stand up for what childcare should be: publicly funded, accessible, safe, and nurturing.

When nursery workers are unionised, they are also part of a wider movement. They can link arms with teaching assistants, school staff, cleaners, council workers—and build the kind of solidarity that changes not just workplaces, but whole communities.

The Islington strike proves this. Those workers were supported by other council departments, by parents, by local campaigners, by the miners and their families. That kind of strength doesn’t come from silence or isolation. It comes from organisation and courage.

A Podcast Tells the Story

A new podcast series, Childcare Voices, tells the story of the Islington strike in the words of those who lived it. Produced by On the Record, a community history organisation, the podcast is the result of a training and production project involving nursery workers, parents, nannies, trade unionists and community organisers.

One of the producers, herself a nursery worker, said:

“During my career, I have seen pressures on nursery staff increase to almost unmanageable levels. Last year, in response to a plan to make redundancies, trade union members in my nursery voted to strike. It feels unjust that as levels of need and childhood poverty have risen, capacity in quality public nursery provision such as mine has reduced.”

This personal connection between the past and present is what makes Childcare Voices so powerful. It isn’t just a history lesson. It’s a call to action.

The podcast has already received recognition, winning silver in the grassroots production category at the 2024 Audio Production Awards. It brings to life a vital, often forgotten, chapter in working-class history and highlights how collective action can shape services that matter to us all.

Lessons for Today

The Islington strike should not be seen as a one-off moment. It is a case study in how low-paid, marginalised workers—often ignored or dismissed—can challenge powerful employers and win. It’s also a warning that victories can be short-lived without continued pressure and vigilance.

Listen to the podcast here: https://shows.acast.com/childcare-voices

By Maria Camara

UK Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling: ‘Woman’ Defined by Biological Sex – Context, Implications, and Reactions

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment confirming that under the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to a biological female – in other words, one’s sex assigned at birth.[1] This unanimous ruling by five justices resolved a long-running legal dispute and clarified the law’s intent regarding sex-based rights.

Legal Background

The Equality Act 2010 is the UK’s comprehensive anti-discrimination law, establishing sex as a protected characteristic alongside others like race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. Notably, the Act’s glossary defines “woman” as “a female of any age” and “man” as “a male of any age.”[2] The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), passed in response to a 2002 European Court of Human Rights ruling, allows transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) legally recognizing their acquired gender. A GRC holder is to be treated as their affirmed gender “for all purposes” of law (with a few exceptions).[3] For nearly two decades, the working understanding in the UK was that a trans woman with a GRC would generally be regarded as legally female (a “woman”) in most contexts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 upended this assumption by drawing a distinction between gender identity and the protected category of sex in the Equality Act. As Deputy Court President Lord Patrick Hodge put it, the EA “deals with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.”[4]

The For Women Scotland Case

The case was brought by feminist advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS). In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, aiming for 50/50 representation of men and women on public sector boards. The Scottish government’s accompanying guidance stated that for these purposes, a “woman” included trans women with a GRC, treating them as legally female.[5] FWS – supported financially by author J.K. Rowling – challenged this guidance, arguing that the Scottish government had overstepped its devolved powers by effectively redefining “woman” beyond the meaning intended in the UK-wide Equality Act.

After losing in the Scottish courts in 2022, FWS was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in November 2024.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in FWS’s favor.[6] The central question was whether a transgender woman with a GRC counts as a woman under the Equality Act 2010. The court’s answer was a clear “no.”

In an 88-page judgment, the justices held that the ordinary, “plain and unambiguous” meaning of woman in the Equality Act “corresponds with… biological characteristics,” i.e. someone born female.[7] They emphasized that sex in the statute means biological sex, and this had always been Parliament’s intent. Any broader interpretation (e.g. including those who changed legal gender) would, in their view, render parts of the Act “incoherent and unworkable.”

Lord Hodge noted that interpreting sex as “certificated gender” would produce “heterogeneous groupings” and clash with specific provisions on pregnancy, maternity, and sex-specific protections that logically refer only to biological sex.

Workplace and Employment Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling carries significant implications for workplaces, employers, and trade unions, especially regarding policies on sex and gender. By legally cementing that “women” means only biological females in the Equality Act, the judgment potentially affects everything from hiring practices and diversity policies to provision of single-sex facilities at work.[8]

Single-Sex Spaces and Facilities

Employers that provide sex-specific spaces – such as women’s toilets, changing rooms, or shower facilities – may feel more confident in restricting these to biologically female employees. Previously, many organizations adopted gender identity-inclusive approaches as a matter of good practice or legal caution. While the law already permitted exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces if it was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, the Supreme Court has “cleared up [that] legal ambiguity,” confirming that such spaces can be lawfully reserved for natal women.[9]

Practically, this may make it easier for employers to exclude trans women from, say, a women’s locker room or female dormitory at a work site, on the basis that they are not legally women. Employers should still tread carefully: any exclusion must be justifiable to avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination.[10]

Recruitment and Job Roles

Employers sometimes use genuine occupational requirements to hire only women for certain roles – for example, a counselor for female rape survivors. Under the clarified definition, only biological females count as women for such roles. A trans woman applicant, even with a GRC, could now be lawfully treated as ineligible for a “women-only” position, based solely on her sex at birth.[11]

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policies

Many employers have adopted expansive equality policies that go beyond the letter of the law. While these commitments aren’t directly affected by the court ruling, the legal baseline has shifted. Employers must be mindful that affirmative action or quotas for women (e.g., in governance or board appointments) cannot automatically include trans women unless this is explicitly stated as a policy choice.[12]

Workplace Dress Codes and HR Practices

The ruling may also affect workplace inclusion. HR professionals have observed that ensuring a welcoming environment for trans employees might become more challenging. One employment law partner noted that “because of the ruling, ensuring workplaces are welcoming places for trans people will be an ‘uphill battle’.”[13] Trans employees could feel alienated if workplace policies start distinguishing “legal women” versus “trans women.”

Trade Unions and Worker Representation

Trade unions – with responsibilities to advocate for equality and represent all members – must navigate this ruling sensitively. A union like Solidarity, for instance, may find the decision validates long-held concerns of some members about preserving sex-based protections. However, they must still robustly support trans members, who are protected under the Equality Act’s gender reassignment provision. No union can lawfully deny representation based on a member’s transgender status.[14]

Unions may also play a crucial role in ensuring that employers implement the ruling fairly – avoiding blanket bans or policies that create hostile environments for trans workers. Updated guidance for shop stewards and equality reps may be necessary to handle sensitive disputes with clarity and fairness.

Consequences for the Trans and Cisgender Communities

The Supreme Court’s decision has profound implications for both transgender people and cisgender women, particularly in their access to services, spaces, and opportunities previously understood to be protected under the broader interpretation of the term “woman.”

Reactions from Trans Communities and Advocacy Groups

LGBTQ+ organizations including Stonewall and TransActual UK have expressed concern that this ruling may reinforce discriminatory behaviour and deepen social exclusion. They argue that although protections under the gender reassignment characteristic remain in place, the ruling effectively creates a legal distinction that reduces the scope of rights and recognitions trans people may have previously assumed.[15]

Jane Fae, director of TransActual, warned the ruling could have a symbolic impact that makes trans people feel “as if they have been told they do not exist.” While not creating new offences, the judgment may be misinterpreted by service providers or individuals, potentially increasing the risk of exclusion and misapplication of the law.[16]

Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Public Services

Trans women may now face greater exclusion from rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards, and changing rooms, even when they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The ruling confirms that these services can legally define access by biological sex, provided the exclusion is proportionate and justified.[17]

NHS guidance from 2019, which stated that trans patients should be accommodated according to their gender presentation, is expected to be revised to align with the ruling. Baroness Falkner of the EHRC has indicated that the NHS and similar service providers will need to “start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith.”[18]

Public Boards and Civic Participation

Trans women will no longer qualify as women for the purposes of measures aimed at achieving gender balance on public sector boards, such as those legislated for by the Scottish Government. This has immediate implications for civic representation and may set a precedent for similar assessments across the UK.

Responses from Cisgender Women

Some gender-critical feminists and advocacy groups such as For Women Scotland and the LGB Alliance celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for women’s rights” and a confirmation that women-only spaces and services should be protected as such.[19] They argue this offers legal support to cisgender women who have raised concerns about privacy, safety, and dignity in shared spaces.

However, many cisgender women and feminists who support transgender inclusion have responded with dismay, noting that trans women have used these spaces safely for years. Critics worry the ruling may embolden harassment and vigilance by the public in gender-policing spaces like toilets and changing areas.

Legal Ambiguity for Trans Men and Non-Binary People

Interestingly, the ruling also means that trans men – individuals assigned female at birth – are still considered women under the Equality Act, unless future legislation states otherwise. This has potential implications for inclusion in women-only spaces and in measures designed to promote female representation or opportunity. For non-binary individuals, who do not identify strictly as male or female, the ruling provides no clear guidance, leaving them in a legal grey area.

Social and Psychological Impacts

Though the court emphasized that trans individuals are still protected under the Equality Act, the symbolic message of the ruling is profound. Many in the trans community feel relegated or erased, while some cisgender women feel that their rights are being newly upheld. The challenge for service providers, employers, and advocacy groups is to ensure that in asserting sex-based rights, society does not inadvertently foster exclusion, hostility, or harm.

Comparative International Legal Context

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling has placed the country at one end of a spectrum of international approaches to legal definitions of sex and gender. While some democracies are codifying sex as based on biology, others are expanding legal frameworks to affirm gender identity regardless of sex assigned at birth.

United States

In the United States, the legal approach is more fragmented. The landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) ruled that firing someone for being transgender constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.[20] However, definitions vary by state. Several U.S. states have passed legislation explicitly defining sex as immutable and based on birth anatomy, similar to the UK’s new interpretation. Conversely, the federal government under the Biden administration has broadly interpreted sex-based protections to include gender identity.

Canada

Canada has enshrined gender identity and expression as protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights codes. Since 2017, federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and most provinces allow for gender marker changes on identification documents without surgical requirements.[21] Legal sex is defined by self-identification in most contexts, and transgender individuals are fully recognized in the gender they live in.

European Union

Across the EU, many countries have moved toward gender self-identification. For instance, Ireland, Denmark, and Spain allow individuals to change legal gender based on self-declaration without medical certification. Spain’s 2023 “Ley Trans” legislation allows individuals over 16 to change their legal sex based on self-identification, aligning with progressive EU standards.[22]

However, not all European countries are aligned. Poland and Hungary have taken restrictive stances, with Hungary banning legal gender changes altogether in 2020. In general, though, EU human rights case law, including decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has supported trans rights, particularly through privacy and non-discrimination provisions.

Australia and New Zealand

In Australia, federal and state laws vary, but generally include gender identity as a protected attribute. Court rulings have recognized trans individuals in their affirmed gender, and several states allow self-identification for legal gender change. New Zealand introduced self-ID for gender on birth certificates in 2023, marking a significant shift toward gender autonomy.[23]

Sports and Global Bodies

Internationally, governing bodies like World Athletics and World Rugby have introduced policies restricting trans women’s participation in female competitions, citing fairness and safety. The UK ruling may reinforce similar domestic policies, although interpretations continue to evolve.

Summary

Compared to its peers, the UK now occupies a more restrictive position on the legal definition of sex. While many liberal democracies are moving toward gender-inclusive frameworks, the UK has clarified a biological interpretation of sex for equality law purposes. This divergence may have implications for future international human rights reviews or legal conflicts involving cross-border rights recognition.

Solidarity with British Industry: Why Buying British Is More Vital Than Ever by Pat Harrington

All political groups and unions must unite in a ‘Buy British campaign says Pat Harrington

1,235 words, 7 minutes read time.

The call to “Buy British” has never been a matter of nostalgia or jingoism. For trade unions like Solidarity and the wider Labour movement, it’s a practical, progressive tool to protect jobs, revive our manufacturing base, and build a more self-reliant, future-ready economy. Amid the upheavals of global supply chains, mounting geopolitical tensions, and the rise of protectionist policies from international powers like the United States, the case for using our collective spending power to support British industry has never been stronger.

Solidarity union has proudly led the charge, running several public campaigns urging consumers to choose British-made goods wherever possible. These campaigns are rooted in a simple yet powerful belief: when we buy British, we invest in British jobs, communities, and skills. It’s not just about waving the flag—it’s about economic justice, sustainability, and national resilience.

Historically, the Labour Party and trade unions have often championed “Buy British” initiatives during times of industrial crisis. In the 1970s and 1980s, as traditional industries faced collapse, union campaigns highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in Britain. The Transport & General Workers’ Union, for example, actively promoted British-made vehicles and products to protect domestic manufacturing. Labour governments of the past also embraced this approach. Harold Wilson praised grassroots initiatives such as the “I’m Backing Britain” campaign in the late 1960s, and the Labour manifesto of 1983 proposed import controls and prioritising British-made goods in public procurement. While these efforts were sometimes controversial, they were rooted in a shared commitment to national industrial renewal.

In more recent years, trade union federations like the TUC have published position papers advocating for a coherent industrial strategy. These documents emphasise the need for investment in high-value manufacturing, green energy, and infrastructure—areas where government procurement can and should favour domestic suppliers. Solidarity fully supports these calls and continues to argue that only with a long-term industrial plan can Britain secure its economic independence.

That said, not all political leaders have shown the same resolve. Some voices within the Labour Party have expressed hesitation. For instance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently stated that she would not back a consumer-focused “Buy British” campaign, arguing that such efforts risk encouraging economic nationalism. While Solidarity recognises the dangers of xenophobia or trade isolationism, we firmly disagree with this conclusion. We believe the British public should be encouraged and empowered to support local production—not out of hostility to others, but out of loyalty to the communities in which they live and work.

It is important to state clearly: Solidarity does not base its policy on a shallow anti-Americanism or target U.S. imports specifically. Our position is motivated by a sincere desire to see an independent and prosperous United Kingdom—capable of making and trading high-quality goods, resilient in the face of global shocks, and free to pursue its own economic strategy. Buying British, in our view, is not about closing ourselves off from the world; it’s about building a strong, confident nation that can compete globally from a position of strength.

This aspiration is only possible because of the freedoms we now possess outside the European Union. Many of the measures we advocate—strategic procurement, public investment in domestic industry, and local content rules—would have been difficult, if not impossible, under EU single market and state aid rules. Whatever one’s position on Brexit, it is clear that the UK is now uniquely positioned to chart its own industrial future. That opportunity must not be wasted.

We’ve seen firsthand how offshoring and deindustrialisation have hollowed out communities. Entire generations have been robbed of the skilled, secure work that once defined working-class life in Britain. Yet, instead of despair, we see opportunity: the chance to rebuild. Rebuilding the UK’s manufacturing base is not a backward-looking project. On the contrary, it’s the only credible path to long-term prosperity, especially in a world where supply lines can snap overnight and foreign governments act unilaterally to prioritise their own industries.

Take the example of the U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration—first on steel and aluminium, then on aircraft, and now the new blanket 10% tariffs and targeted car tariffs. These are not just abstract trade disputes; they’re direct threats to British workers. When tariffs shut out our exports, our factories suffer, our jobs disappear, and our communities pay the price. The only responsible response is to fight back—not with hollow slogans, but with investment, procurement, and a serious industrial strategy.

That’s why Solidarity supports the Labour Party’s calls for strategic procurement to favour UK suppliers. Labour’s proposals to rebuild manufacturing capacity, invest in green industry, and embed “Buy British” principles in public contracts are not just welcome—they are essential. The promise to make, buy, and sell more in Britain isn’t protectionism—it’s common sense. It’s about using the enormous power of public spending—over £270 billion a year—to secure good jobs, shorten supply chains, and reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

Technology sovereignty is also at stake. The UK cannot afford to be dependent on others for semiconductors, energy components, or the tools of the future economy. If we want to lead in clean energy, digital infrastructure, or medical innovation, we need to make sure we can build the necessary parts here at home. Buying British isn’t just about steel and cars—it’s about making sure the next generation of industry is made in Britain, by British workers, under decent conditions.

Solidarity’s message is clear: every purchase is a political act. When we buy a car made in Sunderland, a steel beam forged in Port Talbot, or a jacket sewn in Leicester, we’re casting a vote for good jobs, fair pay, and national self-respect. That’s why we continue to campaign not only for better trade policy, but for better choices at the till.

We urge the government—and all political parties—to take up this cause without hesitation. We must match rhetoric with resources, and slogans with strategy. Britain needs a serious industrial policy, clear local content rules in procurement, and investment in the industries of the future. The Labour Party and trade unions are right to demand these things. Solidarity is proud to stand alongside them.

Buying British is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Let’s make it a national priority.

Footnotes

Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium in 2018, affecting UK exports.
UK exports of cars to the US exceed £8 billion annually; Trump threatened a 25% tariff on autos in 2019 and 2025.
Labour’s 2024 industrial strategy includes proposals for strategic procurement and rebuilding domestic supply chains.
Solidarity union campaigns have included local business spotlights, workplace posters, and social media campaigns to encourage consumers to buy British.
The TUC has long advocated for the revival of UK manufacturing and coordinated responses to trade shocks.
Labour and unions called for “Save Our Steel” procurement policies during the 2015-2016 crisis and after Trump-era tariffs.
The UK’s public procurement budget is approximately £270 billion per year, presenting a major opportunity to boost domestic industry.
Technology sovereignty has been cited by think tanks and unions as a key pillar of future industrial resilience.
The 1983 Labour manifesto proposed import controls and prioritisation of British-made goods.
Rachel Reeves, April 2025: “If every country decided to only buy things produced at home, that’s not a good way forward.”

More Holes Than Swiss Cheese: Unions Critical of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill

741 words, 4 minutes read time.

The new government has made headlines with its Employment Rights Bill, heralded as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.” However, as the ink dries on the Bill, trade unions have voiced strong criticisms, claiming it has “more holes than Swiss cheese.” While the Bill introduces some significant reforms, unions argue it falls short in critical areas, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation. In this “deep dive” we look at the pros and cons of the Bill and reactions to it.

Key Gains in the Bill

The Employment Rights Bill outlines several notable advancements for workers:

– Day One Rights: Key rights, including protection from unfair dismissal and access to sick pay and unpaid parental leave, will now be effective from the first day of employment.

– Sick Pay Revisions: Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will begin on the first day of absence rather than the fourth, and those earning below the Lower Earnings Limit will also be eligible.

– Stronger Protections for Parents: Enhanced maternity protections will prevent dismissals of new mothers within six months of their return to work, and paternity rights have been expanded for fathers and eligible partners.

– Flexible Working Requests: The Bill aims to make flexible working the default, with refusals only permitted under “reasonable” circumstances.

– Ending Zero-Hours Contracts: Workers on zero-hours and low-hours contracts will have the right to move to a contract reflecting their regular hours.

– Industrial Relations Reforms: The repeal of minimum service levels and restrictions on strike actions are positive moves, alongside the establishment of a Fair Work Agency to enforce employment rights.

While these measures represent significant progress, unions are quick to highlight the gaps and limitations that still allow for employer exploitation.

What’s Missing?

Despite the promising reforms, key issues remain unaddressed:

– No Ban on Zero-Hours Contracts: The Bill does not outright ban zero-hours contracts or the practice of fire-and-rehire, which leaves workers vulnerable to job insecurity.

– Limited Flexible Working Rights Unions are concerned that the provisions for flexible working remain too easily circumvented by employers.

– Lack of Comprehensive Worker Classification The Bill postpones the creation of a single status of worker, which would ensure that all workers receive full employment rights.

– No Right to Disconnect The absence of a ‘right to switch off’ means employees may still face pressure to engage outside of working hours.

– Delayed Implementation: Many of the Bill’s provisions won’t take effect until 2026, raising concerns about the timeliness of these crucial reforms.

Union Reactions

Trade union leaders have not held back in their critiques. Unite’s General Secretary, Sharon Graham, characterized the Bill as a significant step forward but cautioned that it “still ties itself up in knots trying to avoid what was promised.” She pointed out that failure to ban fire-and-rehire practices and zero-hours contracts will allow employers to exploit the loopholes that remain.

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary of the National Education Union, lamented the limited grounds for refusing flexible working requests, warning that this could lead to increased disputes in workplaces.

Christina McAnea General Secretary of Unison, welcomed provisions for care workers but emphasized the need for immediate action to ensure fair pay for all workers in the sector.

Paul Nowak, TUC General Secretary, called for swift implementation of the reforms, urging that the focus should be on making work pay for all.

Mick Lynch, RMT General Secretary, noted the positive steps toward repealing anti-union laws, while Mick Whelan of Aslef labelled the Bill as a vital first step in advancing workers’ rights.

Adding to this chorus, Pat Harrington of the Solidarity Union echoed the sentiments of Lynch and Whelan, asserting that while the Bill has its shortcomings, it is part of a broader process that will gradually improve the position of working people. Harrington emphasized the importance of continued engagement with the Labour government to push for a progressive agenda, suggesting that union efforts could help steer future reforms toward greater worker protections.

Conclusion

While the Employment Rights Bill does introduce some long-awaited reforms, trade unions remain deeply concerned about its many gaps. As Sharon Graham succinctly put it, the Bill leaves “more holes than Swiss cheese” in protections for workers. The coming months will be crucial as unions continue to advocate for stronger rights and push for the necessary changes to ensure that all workers can truly benefit from the promised reforms. The challenge now lies in holding the government accountable to its commitments and ensuring that the legislation translates into real, tangible benefits for all workers.

By Maria Camara

The Case of Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited and Others: A Landmark Decision on Belief Discrimination

846 words, 4 minutes read time.

In the landmark case of Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal delivered a significant judgment that has implications for employment law and the protection of beliefs within the workplace. The case revolved around Ms. Allison Bailey’s claim that she faced discrimination due to her gender-critical beliefs, which she argued were protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Bailey’s beliefs included the view that Stonewall’s advocacy for gender self-identity was harmful to women’s rights and lesbian same-sex orientation. The Employment Tribunal applied the Grainger test and ruled that her beliefs were indeed protected.

In the most recent development, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the first decision, reinforcing the protection of gender-critical beliefs under the Equality Act.

The tribunal’s judgment addressed complex issues surrounding the interpretation of the Equality Act, particularly about philosophical beliefs. It highlighted the need for employers to carefully consider the rights of employees to hold and express beliefs, even when those beliefs are controversial or at odds with the views of others within the organization.

The implications of the Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited case are quite significant for future disputes involving philosophical beliefs and workplace discrimination:

Protection of Philosophical Beliefs: The case reinforces that “gender-critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. This means that individuals holding such beliefs are entitled to protection from discrimination and victimization in the workplace.
Employer Policies and Training: Employers need to review their policies and training programs to make sure they do not inadvertently discriminate against employees with protected beliefs. This includes balancing the rights of individuals with different beliefs and making sure an inclusive environment is created for all.
Legal Precedent: The case sets a legal precedent that influences future tribunal decisions. It highlights the importance of the Grainger test in determining whether a belief qualifies for protection under the Equality Act.
Impact on Advocacy Groups: Advocacy groups like Stonewall need to consider how their policies and actions are perceived and make sure they do not conflict with the rights of individuals holding protected beliefs.
Workplace Dynamics: The case will lead to increased awareness and sensitivity around issues of belief and identity in the workplace, encouraging more open dialogue and understanding among employees.

The implications of the Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited case and her employer are quite significant for future disputes involving philosophical beliefs and workplace discrimination:

Protection of Philosophical Beliefs: The case reinforces that “gender-critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. This means that individuals holding such beliefs are entitled to protection from discrimination and victimization in the workplace.
Employer Policies and Training: Employers need to review their policies and training programs to make sure they do not inadvertently discriminate against employees with protected beliefs. This includes balancing the rights of individuals with different beliefs and making sure an inclusive environment is created for all.
Legal Precedent: The case sets a legal precedent that will influence future tribunal decisions. It highlights the importance of the Grainger test in determining whether a belief qualifies for protection under the Equality Act.
Impact on Advocacy Groups: Advocacy groups like Stonewall need to consider how their policies and actions are perceived and make sure they do not conflict with the rights of individuals holding protected beliefs.
Workplace Dynamics: The case will lead to increased awareness and sensitivity around issues of belief and identity in the workplace, encouraging more open dialogue and understanding among employees.

In this case, Bailey, a tenant of GCC, had tweeted views critical of Stonewall’s stance on trans rights. Stonewall and others complained to GCC, prompting an investigation. The tribunal found that GCC’s actions were discriminatory against Bailey’s gender critical beliefs. But Bailey’s appeal against Stonewall was dismissed because:

1. Causation Requirement: The EAT found that GCC made the final decision to discriminate, independent of Stonewall’s complaint.
2. Fairness and Reasonableness: It would not be fair or reasonable to hold Stonewall liable for GCC’s discriminatory actions, even though Stonewall’s complaint initiated the process.

So, the EAT determined that the responsibility for the discriminatory outcome rested solely with GCC.

Bailey was awarded £22,000 in the discrimination case.

For those interested in delving deeper into the details of the case and its implications, the full judgment is available for public review. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented and the legal reasoning behind the tribunal’s decision. This case is a must-read for legal professionals, employers, and employees alike, as it offers valuable insights into the complexities of belief discrimination and the application of the Equality Act in real-world scenarios.

The Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited case is a testament to the dynamic nature of employment law and its responsiveness to the changing societal landscape. It is a clear sign that the courts are willing to engage with difficult questions about belief, identity, and the rights of individuals within the workplace. As society continues to grapple with these issues, the legal system will play a crucial role in defining the boundaries of acceptable belief and expression in professional settings.

You can read the full EAT decision here

By Pat Harrington

Tata Steel Workers Vote for Industrial Action Amid Threat of Blast Furnace Closure

Port Talbot works

507 words, 3 minutes read time.

Tata Steel workers in Port Talbot, members of the Unite union, have taken a significant step by voting for industrial action. The dispute centres around Tata’s plans to replace blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces (EAFs), a move that could result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

Tata Steel, an Indian-owned company, aims to close blast furnaces in Port Talbot and Llanwern. The proposed shift to EAFs would lead to the loss of 2,500 jobs in Port Talbot and 300 jobs in Llanwern. Port Talbot steelworkers have campaigned for an integrated electric and blast furnace system throughout 2023, but this marks the first strike in over 40 years.

Unite Wales regional secretary, Peter Hughes, condemns Tata’s actions as “devastating industrial vandalism”. Tata allegedly used tactics such as bribes and threats to discourage members from taking industrial action. Unite remains resolute, emphasizing the impact on the Welsh economy and the UK’s national interest.

EAFs vs. Blast Furnaces

EAFs produce steel from scrap, not the quality virgin steel derived from raw materials that industries like rail, aerospace, and automotive sectors require. Blast furnaces, fuelled by coal and coke, provide the essential raw material for these critical industries. Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union says:

“The shift to EAFs poses a threat to Britain’s industrial sovereignty, especially as steel demand is expected to rise significantly in the coming years. Tata is guilty of hypocrisy regarding emissions. While cutting British jobs, the company is simultaneously opening new blast furnaces in India.
Their motives appear profit-driven rather than environmentally conscious.“

“The closure of blast furnaces in Port Talbot, along with similar proposals at the Chinese-owned British Steel plant in Scunthorpe, would leave the UK as the only G20 economy without the ability to make steel from scratch,”

Tata has questioned the regularity of Unite’s strike ballot, but this has not deterred fellow union members. Members of Community, who work in blast furnaces, will hold their own strike ballot. They accuse Tata of pursuing “decarbonization on the cheap”. The untested nature of EAFs raises concerns, as closure of all blast furnaces could lead to a 3-year production pause. Semi-finished steel slabs may need to be imported before EAFs become operational in 2027.

A Unite petition, signed by 30,000 people, calls for greater support for steel and the use of UK steel in domestic projects. Corby, once home to Europe’s largest integrated steel-making plant, has seen a decline in steel employment since the 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, British Steel (Chinese-owned) secures a contract to supply rail tracks for Egypt’s electrified mainline and freight network.

British Steel plans to demolish its blast furnaces, with EAFs operational only by late 2025. The Scunthorpe-based company’s contract for Egypt’s rail route highlights the stakes for the UK steel industry. In summary, the battle over steel production and jobs continues, with workers and unions standing up against Tata’s plans. The outcome will shape the future of Britain’s steel industry and its role in global markets.

Picture credit: By Chris Shaw, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9173765

Deep Dive: Australian Government Sides With The Workers

Lessons should be learned by the UK from changes in Employment Law in Australia

1,125 words, 6 minutes read time.

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2024 (Cth) is a bill that aims to improve the rights and conditions of workers in Australia by closing some of the loopholes that allow employers to undercut minimum standards and exploit workers. The bill was introduced by the Labor government and passed by the parliament with the support of the Greens and some crossbenchers. The bill includes the following key reforms:

A new definition of casual employee that is based on the offer and acceptance of employment, rather than the actual pattern of work. This will prevent employers from misclassifying permanent employees as casuals and avoid paying them entitlements such as annual leave, sick leave and redundancy pay. The bill also introduces a new employee choice pathway for eligible casual employees to request and obtain permanent employment if they wish to do so, after working for the same employer for at least 12 months and having a regular pattern of work for at least 6 months.
A new power for the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to make orders protecting bargained wages in enterprise agreements from being undercut by the use of labour hire workers who are paid less than those minimum rates. This is also known as the ‘same job same pay’ principle. The FWC will be able to make such orders if it is satisfied that the use of labour hire workers has a significant adverse impact on the bargaining power of employees covered by the enterprise agreement, or on the quality or safety of the work performed.
An increase in the maximum penalties for underpayments by amending the civil penalties and serious civil contravention frameworks, and adjusting the threshold for what will constitute a serious contravention. The bill will increase the maximum civil penalty for underpayments from $66,600 to $133,200 for individuals, and from $333,000 to $666,000 for corporations. The bill will also lower the threshold for a serious contravention from ‘deliberate’ to ‘intentional’ conduct, and increase the maximum penalty for a serious contravention from $666,000 to $1,332,000 for individuals, and from $3,330,000 to $6,660,000 for corporations.
A new criminal offence for wage theft, which applies to intentional conduct that results in an employee being deprived of their entitlements under the Act or a fair work instrument. The bill will make wage theft punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, or a fine of up to $1,332,000 for individuals, or both; and a fine of up to $6,660,000 for corporations.
A reversal of the impact of recent High Court decisions narrowing the meaning of employee by defining the meanings of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ for the purposes of the Act which require a consideration of the ‘real substance, practical reality and true nature’ of the relationship. This will ensure that workers who are in fact employees are not excluded from the protections and benefits of the Act by being labelled as independent contractors, volunteers, interns or other non-employee categories.
A new power for the FWC to set fair minimum standards for ‘employee-like’ workers, including those working in the gig economy and the road transport industry. The bill will allow individuals and organisations to apply to the FWC for orders for minimum standards in the gig economy, including on pay, penalty rates, superannuation, payment terms, record-keeping, insurance and deactivation. Deactivation is the process of removing a gig economy worker from an app, ending their ability to earn income despite claims workers are ‘independent’ of the platform. The reforms are limited to digital platform workers who have low bargaining power, low authority over their work or receive pay at or below the rates of comparable employees.
A new power for the FWC to deal with disputes about unfair terms in services contracts to which an independent contractor is a party. The bill will allow independent contractors to apply to the FWC for a review of a services contract if they believe it contains unfair terms, such as terms that are harsh, oppressive, unconscionable, unjust or unreasonable. The FWC will be able to make orders varying, setting aside or declaring void any unfair terms in the contract.
A new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth). The bill will make it an offence for a person conducting a business or undertaking, or an officer of such a person, to engage in conduct that causes the death of a worker, and is negligent about causing the death of the worker. The bill will make industrial manslaughter punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment, or a fine of up to $10,000,000, or both.

The bill is expected to come into effect on 1 July 2024, subject to some transitional and commencement provisions. The bill has been welcomed by unions, workers’ rights advocates and some business groups as a positive step towards creating a fairer and more secure workplace system in Australia. However, the bill has also been criticised by some employer groups, legal experts and opposition parties as being too complex, costly and burdensome for businesses, and potentially creating more uncertainty and litigation in the labour market.

Australian Congress of Trade Unions (ACTU) secretary Sally McManus said the changes were a great win for workers. “Not only will casual and gig workers have more rights, protections, and choices, but all workers can look forward to a better working life.”

The UK and Australia have some similarities in their labour markets, such as a high proportion of service sector jobs, a relatively flexible employment system, and a common law tradition. They also face some common issues, such as the rise of the gig economy, the impact of automation and digitalisation, and the need to balance the interests of workers and employers.

Some of the potential benefits of the Australian reforms include:

Providing more clarity and certainty for workers and employers about their rights and obligations, especially in relation to casual work, labour hire, and gig work.
Enhancing the protection and enforcement of workers’ rights, especially for vulnerable and low-paid workers, by increasing the penalties for underpayments and wage theft, and creating a new criminal offence for industrial manslaughter.
Promoting fair and decent work, by ensuring that workers have access to minimum standards and entitlements, such as annual leave, sick leave, and superannuation, regardless of their employment status or contract type.
Encouraging a more balanced and productive industrial relations system, by preventing the undercutting of bargained wages, empowering the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards, and allowing independent contractors to challenge unfair terms in their contracts.

Here in the UK we should consider the changes in Australia and the desirability of introducing similar measures here.

By Pat Harrington

Picture Credit