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

The Case for a Shorter Working Week: A Necessary Change

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

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

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

But history is not on the side of the sceptics.

A shorter week is not radical — the status quo is

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

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

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

The economic case: productivity follows wellbeing

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

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

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

The social case: time is a public good

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

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

The political case: workers must set the agenda

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

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

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

A movement whose time has come

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

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

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

By Maria Camara

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

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

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

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

The Argument For a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

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

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

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

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

The Argument Against a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

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

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

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

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

Why Trade Unionists Care

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

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

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

The Larger Question

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

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

By Pat Harrington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Maria Camara

Picture credit: KollectivFutur

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

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

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

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

1. Violence Against Rail Workers: The Hidden Epidemic

The numbers alone should shame the industry.

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

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

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

• Only one in four resulted in charges.

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

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

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

2. Carmont and the Price of Austerity

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

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

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

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

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

3. Lessons Forgotten: The Danger of Complacency

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

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

The rail industry cannot afford another era of forgetting.

4. Air Quality Underground: The Invisible Threat

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

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

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

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

5. Mental Health: The Unspoken Cost of Rail Work

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

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

6. The Politics of Safety: Why Public Ownership Matters

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

Unions are right to demand:

• A fully funded, publicly owned railway

• Investment in infrastructure, not cuts

• Safety as a non‑negotiable principle

• A culture that remembers its history rather than repeating it

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

7. A Railway Worthy of Its Workers

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

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

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

By Maria Camara

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