Autistic Job Applicant’s Stress Misjudged: Tribunal Warned Against Making Assumptions About Disability

An employment tribunal was wrong to assume that an autistic job applicant was not stressed simply because he appeared confident during an interview. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ordered part of his discrimination case to be heard again. The decision raises important questions about how employers assess disabled candidates and whether traditional recruitment methods give everyone a fair opportunity.

By Maria Camara

How can an interviewer tell whether someone is stressed?

They might look for nervousness, hesitation or visible discomfort. Someone who answers questions confidently and stands up for themselves might be assumed to be coping perfectly well.

But people do not all experience or display stress in the same way. What appears calm on the outside may conceal considerable anxiety.

This was central to the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026] EAT 153, delivered on 9 October 2026.

The appeal tribunal found that the original employment tribunal had wrongly relied upon assumptions about how people normally behave when deciding whether an autistic job applicant had experienced stress.

The case provides an important reminder that disability discrimination cannot always be assessed by applying conventional expectations about behaviour.

What happened?

Mr Bryce, who has Asperger’s syndrome and dyslexia, applied for a team manager position in Coventry City Council’s revenue services department.

Asperger’s syndrome is a term historically used to describe a form of autism and is now generally included within the wider autism spectrum.

Mr Bryce informed the council about his disabilities before his interview in February 2022.

The council agreed to several adjustments. His interview was scheduled at the end of the working day so that additional time could be allowed if necessary. He received the interview questions 24 minutes beforehand, and interviewers agreed to repeat or rephrase questions when required.

Eight candidates competed for two positions. Mr Bryce received the lowest score and was unsuccessful.

He brought claims under the Equality Act 2010, arguing that the interview arrangements had placed him at a disadvantage and that his disability had contributed to his rejection.

The original employment tribunal dismissed his claims in October 2023.

He appealed.

The problem with judging appearances

One of Mr Bryce’s arguments was that his disabilities caused him stress in unfamiliar situations, including job interviews.

The original tribunal accepted that he generally experienced such difficulties. However, it concluded that he had not been stressed during this particular interview.

Its reasoning relied heavily upon the observations of an experienced interviewer, Mr Stinton.

Mr Stinton considered that Mr Bryce appeared confident. He had explained the adjustments he needed and had refused a request to share his computer screen during his presentation.

The interviewer believed that someone experiencing stress might agree to something they did not want to do rather than refuse.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal identified a fundamental problem with that reasoning.

The interviewer was making assumptions based upon how neurotypical people might behave.

Neurotypical generally describes people whose neurological functioning follows patterns regarded as typical.

An autistic person may experience stress without displaying the signs another person expects to see.

The appeal judge, Her Honour Judge Joffe, found that the tribunal had accepted the interviewer’s assessment without considering whether someone with Mr Bryce’s disabilities might express stress differently.

It had also preferred the interviewer’s impressions, despite his lack of specialist expertise in Mr Bryce’s conditions, over Mr Bryce’s own evidence about how interviews affected him.

That conclusion could not stand.

The appeal judge also found that, if the original tribunal had instead concluded that Mr Bryce experienced stress but that it made no material difference to his performance, it had failed to explain that finding adequately.

What does discrimination arising from disability mean?

Mr Bryce’s successful appeal concerned section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

This deals with discrimination arising from disability.

In plain English, it means treating someone unfavourably because of something resulting from their disability.

For example, a disabled employee might have difficulty concentrating or communicating in particular circumstances. If an employer penalises them for the resulting behaviour, that may amount to discrimination even where the employer is not deliberately targeting the disability itself.

An employer may have a defence if it can demonstrate that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

That means showing that the decision served a genuine and lawful purpose and was justified in the particular circumstances.

In Mr Bryce’s case, the central question is whether stress arising from his disabilities contributed to the council’s decision not to appoint him.

That question has not yet been finally determined.

Why did his reasonable-adjustments appeal fail?

Mr Bryce also argued that the council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to the interview process.

Employers have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to remove or reduce substantial disadvantages experienced by disabled applicants and employees.

A substantial disadvantage is one that is more than minor or trivial.

Mr Bryce had difficulty quickly recalling examples of his experience and explaining how he met the requirements of the role.

He argued that interviewers should have used closed questions, ultimately proposing questions requiring only yes-or-no answers.

The appeal judge accepted that the wording of questions could affect how quickly someone with his disabilities could respond. On that point, the original tribunal’s reasoning had been wrong.

However, the council had already followed guidance from the National Autistic Society by asking specific questions about relevant experience.

The judge agreed that asking only yes-or-no questions would have prevented the interviewers from properly assessing whether Mr Bryce possessed the skills required for the management position.

His reasonable-adjustments appeal therefore failed.

There was nevertheless another important legal clarification.

The original tribunal had suggested that the council could simply accept the adjustments requested by Mr Bryce without considering anything further.

The appeal judge explained that this was not necessarily correct.

An employer’s duty is not automatically limited to the adjustments a disabled applicant specifically requests.

Employers may need to consider other reasonable measures to address a disadvantage of which they are, or should be, aware.

What was the exact outcome of the appeal?

Mr Bryce succeeded in challenging the tribunal’s treatment of his disability-related stress, but he did not win his discrimination claim outright.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered a fresh hearing before a different tribunal, which must reconsider whether stress arising from his disability contributed to his unsuccessful application and, if so, whether the council’s decision was legally justified.

His separate claim that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed.

An additional ground of appeal, concerning whether difficulties demonstrating communication and other skills arose from his disability, was also rejected. That particular argument had not been properly advanced in the original proceedings.

The final outcome of the section 15 discrimination claim therefore remains undecided.

The EAT identified legal errors in the original tribunal’s reasoning. It did not find that Coventry City Council had committed unlawful discrimination.

No compensation was awarded by the appeal tribunal.

Are traditional interviews always fair?

There is a wider issue here.

Recruitment processes often reward candidates who think quickly, speak confidently and produce polished answers under pressure.

Yet performing well at an interview is not necessarily the same as performing well in a job.

A capable worker may struggle to recall examples of their experience in an artificial interview setting but demonstrate excellent judgement and ability in everyday employment.

The appeal judge recognised that alternative assessment methods might sometimes be more suitable for disabled applicants.

Practical exercises, written responses, additional preparation time or different questioning techniques may help employers obtain a more accurate picture of a candidate’s abilities.

That does not mean every candidate should receive identical adjustments. Autism affects individuals differently, and arrangements must reflect their particular circumstances.

The objective should be to assess whether someone can do the job, not simply whether they can perform well in a conventional interview.

The Solidarity view

For Solidarity, this decision has implications beyond recruitment.

Managers dealing with disciplinary matters, capability assessments and grievances should not assume that someone’s outward behaviour accurately reflects their internal experience.

An employee who appears calm may be distressed. Someone who communicates directly may be misunderstood as confrontational. A worker who struggles to answer questions under pressure may nevertheless understand their job extremely well.

Trade union representatives should challenge assessments based upon stereotypes rather than evidence.

Employers are entitled to assess whether people have the necessary skills for a particular role. Disabled applicants are not automatically entitled to appointment or every adjustment they request.

But fairness requires employers to understand the difficulties individuals face and consider reasonable ways of addressing them.

The lesson from Bryce is that people should be judged on their actual abilities and circumstances rather than assumptions about how they ought to behave.

That is an important principle for disabled workers and one which trade unions should defend.

Case reference: Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026] EAT 153, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Her Honour Judge Joffe, 9 October 2026.

Full judgment: Read the official Employment Appeal Tribunal decision

Fire and Rehire: New Laws Will Protect Pay and Shift Patterns from March 2027

New employment laws will make it harder for employers to dismiss workers who refuse changes to their pay, hours or working conditions. The Government has now confirmed which expenses, benefits and shift arrangements will receive protection. The reforms are welcome, but some significant gaps remain.

By Maria Camara

Fire and rehire has long been a source of conflict between employers and workers. The practice allows an employer to dismiss employees who refuse changes to their contracts, then offer to re-employ them on new terms, often involving reduced pay, less favourable hours or the loss of benefits.

The choice facing workers can be difficult. Accept the changes or risk losing your job. For someone with a mortgage, rent or family responsibilities, that is hardly a negotiation between equals.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces stronger restrictions on this practice. The Government has now published its response to a consultation examining how the new rules should apply to expenses, benefits and shift patterns.

The Government intends to bring the new protections into force in March 2027.

What will change?

The new law introduces the term restricted variation. This simply means a change to an employment contract that receives special legal protection.

Restricted changes include reductions to contractual pay, certain pension changes, alterations to contractual working hours, reductions in time off and specified changes to shift patterns.

An employer who dismisses a worker for refusing one of these changes will normally be committing automatically unfair dismissal.

This is an important distinction. Under ordinary unfair dismissal law, an employer may be able to justify dismissal by demonstrating a fair reason and a reasonable process. With automatically unfair dismissal, the law treats the particular reason for dismissal as unacceptable, subject to limited statutory exceptions.

Workers will not need a minimum period of employment to benefit from these new protections.

The law does not prevent employers and employees agreeing changes. Its purpose is to restrict the use of dismissal to force through changes to core contractual rights.

Expenses and benefits: what is protected?

The Government has decided that most expenses and benefits in kind will fall outside the strongest fire and rehire protections.

There are three important exceptions:

Travel expenses, including mileage payments.
Accommodation expenses incurred through work.
Long-term accommodation provided as a contractual employment benefit.

Consider a care worker who uses their own car to travel between clients. If their contract guarantees a particular mileage payment, an employer who dismisses them for refusing a reduction in that rate will normally fall foul of the new rules.

This matters because travel costs can consume a substantial proportion of a low-paid worker’s earnings.

The protection is less comprehensive when it comes to benefits in kind. These are non-cash benefits provided by employers, such as private medical insurance or subsidised services.

Most will be excluded, as will employee share schemes.

For many workers, this distinction may have little practical significance. An employer might reduce the overall value of an employee’s remuneration without reducing their stated salary. For workers, the financial consequences can be much the same.

Why the wording of your contract matters

The new protections generally apply where the entitlement being changed is contractual.

A contractual term is a legally binding part of the employment agreement. If a contract guarantees a particular payment or benefit, changing it will normally require agreement or some other lawful basis.

However, some employers provide benefits through policies which are expressly non-contractual. Others include variation clauses allowing specified changes to be made without further agreement.

Where an employer can genuinely make a change under an existing contractual provision, the new restricted variation rules may not apply.

But employers cannot simply declare that every benefit is discretionary.

Contractual rights may arise from collective agreements, incorporated workplace policies or established practices followed consistently over time.

Trade union representatives should therefore examine the contract, relevant policies and the history of an entitlement before accepting an employer’s claim that it can be withdrawn.

Shift patterns: protection against major changes

The new rules will also protect workers against certain particularly disruptive changes to their working patterns.

A restricted variation will arise where an employee is newly required to work:

at night rather than during the day, or during the day rather than at night; or
at weekends rather than on weekdays, or on weekdays rather than at weekends.

For these purposes, night-time means work between 11pm and 6am.

Imagine someone who has worked Monday to Friday for years. Their employer announces that weekend working will now be compulsory. The employee refuses because of childcare responsibilities.

Under the new regime, dismissing that employee in order to impose the new contractual requirement would normally be automatically unfair.

The same principle applies to a daytime worker who is newly required to work nights.

These protections recognise that changes between daytime and night-time working, and between weekday and weekend working, can have profound consequences for family life, caring responsibilities, transport arrangements, health and wellbeing.

However, the protection is deliberately limited. Not every disruptive shift change will qualify as a restricted variation.

For example, moving a shift from 8am-4pm to 10am-6pm would not normally fall within the protected categories, provided the contractual number of hours remains unchanged. Yet for a worker collecting children from school or relying on public transport, such a change could still make continued employment extremely difficult.

The Government has also excluded changes to availability windows. These are periods during which a contract permits an employer to schedule work, even though an employee may only work some of those hours.

A worker whose contract already allows broad scheduling flexibility may therefore receive less protection than someone whose working pattern is tightly defined.

From a trade union perspective, this is one of the most significant limitations of the reforms. While the legislation protects workers from certain major changes between day and night work and between weekday and weekend work, many other rota changes capable of seriously disrupting family life will remain outside the scope of the new rules.

What should trade unions do?

The new legislation should provide unions with stronger grounds for resisting attempts to impose worse employment conditions.

When an employer proposes contractual changes, representatives should establish precisely what is being changed, whether the terms are contractual and why management claims the changes are necessary.

Employers should be expected to explain their business case and consider alternatives.

If financial difficulties are claimed, unions should seek supporting information. If shift changes are proposed, management should explain why existing arrangements cannot continue.

Consultation must be meaningful. It should not be a meeting held merely to confirm a decision already taken.

Workers should also be cautious about signing revised contracts without advice. Once new terms have been accepted, challenging them can become more difficult.

Collective agreements remain particularly important. Clear negotiated provisions covering pay, expenses, shift patterns and consultation procedures can provide protection beyond the statutory minimum.

The Solidarity view

Solidarity welcomes stronger restrictions on fire and rehire. Employers should not be able to threaten workers with dismissal simply because they refuse to surrender established rights.

The new legislation will make that harder, particularly where employers seek reductions in contractual pay or major changes to working patterns.

But the exclusions are disappointing.

Losing an important workplace benefit can be just as damaging as losing part of a salary. A shift change of only a few hours can create serious difficulties for workers with caring responsibilities. These concerns should not be dismissed because they fall outside a narrow legal definition.

There is also a danger that employers will respond by using broader flexibility clauses and making more benefits discretionary.

This is why collective bargaining remains essential.

Where genuine operational difficulties exist, employers may need to seek changes to working arrangements. Where genuine problems do exist, those changes should be discussed openly, with proper consideration of the consequences for employees.

Workers should not be expected to accept whatever management demands simply because the alternative is unemployment.

While these protections represent a significant improvement, many workers may still face substantial changes to their hours and working arrangements where those changes fall outside the narrow categories protected by the regulations. We should use those protections fully while continuing to argue for stronger safeguards.

An employment contract is an agreement between two parties, not a document which the employer should be free to rewrite at will.

Legal note: The new fire and rehire protections are expected to come into force in March 2027, subject to implementing regulations. They apply to Great Britain; Northern Ireland has separate employment legislation. Existing legal protections continue to apply until the new provisions commence.

Sources: Employment Rights Act 2025 | Government consultation and response | Acas guidance on fire and rehire

Pregnancy and Maternity Dismissal Protection: Employers Face Tougher Rules from October 2027

Pregnant employees and new parents are set to receive stronger protection against unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 2025. From October 2027, employers will have to demonstrate that dismissal is objectively justified, rather than simply falling within the range of decisions a reasonable employer might make. The changes could make a considerable difference to workers facing dismissal during pregnancy, maternity leave or their return to employment. But how far do the protections really go, and where do weaknesses remain?

These reforms are unquestionably significant, but workers should be cautious about assuming they eliminate the risk of unfair dismissal. The legislation strengthens legal protections and increases the obligations placed on employers, yet the effectiveness of those rights will ultimately depend on enforcement through employment tribunals and the willingness of employers to adopt fair workplace practices.

By Maria Camara

A woman tells her employer that she is pregnant. Until then, her performance has attracted little criticism. Months later, perhaps after returning from maternity leave, problems begin to emerge. Her duties have changed. There are questions about her availability, her commitment or her ability to meet the demands of the job. Eventually, she finds herself facing dismissal.

Was the decision genuinely about her performance? Would the employer have acted in the same way had she not become a mother? And, perhaps more importantly, was dismissal really necessary?

These are questions which employment tribunals already encounter. They are also questions which will become more important under the Government’s proposed changes to the law.

On 22 October 2026, the Government published its response to a consultation on enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers. The response sets out how powers contained in the Employment Rights Act 2025 are intended to be used.

The central change is significant. Employers will no longer be able to defend an ordinary unfair dismissal claim involving an employee within the new protected period simply by demonstrating that their decision fell within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer. They will face a more demanding test.

They must demonstrate that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The new provisions are intended to take effect in October 2027. Regulations are still needed to bring the detailed protections into operation.

That distinction matters. Employees already have important pregnancy and maternity rights, but the additional dismissal test described here is not yet in force.

Why the existing law has not been enough

Pregnancy and maternity discrimination are already unlawful. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy, pregnancy-related illness during the statutory protected period, or maternity leave.

Under existing employment legislation, dismissal because of pregnancy or the exercise of maternity rights can also amount to automatically unfair dismissal. Employees do not need two years’ service to bring such a claim.

There are additional rules governing redundancy. Since April 2024, pregnant employees and those taking qualifying family leave have enjoyed extended protection where their jobs are at risk. If a suitable alternative vacancy exists, an employer must offer it to an eligible protected employee as a priority.

Yet problems remain.

The existing legislation does not prevent every dismissal that occurs during pregnancy or shortly after maternity leave. An employer may argue that the dismissal concerns capability, conduct, redundancy or another legitimate matter unrelated to pregnancy.

Such explanations may be entirely genuine. They may also conceal discrimination or reflect a failure to consider the employee’s circumstances properly.

It is not always straightforward to establish which is the case.

In its 2026 State of the Nation survey, the campaign organisation Pregnant Then Screwed reported that nearly three-quarters of participating mothers had experienced pregnancy or maternity discrimination at work. The survey drew on responses from more than 5,000 women. More than one in three who reported discrimination said they had left their jobs.

Those findings are disturbing. They also demonstrate why having rights written into legislation is not necessarily enough.

Workers must know those rights, be able to challenge employers who disregard them and have realistic access to justice.

A different test for dismissal

To understand the importance of the proposed changes, it is necessary to look at how ordinary unfair dismissal currently operates.

An employer seeking to justify dismissal normally has to establish one of five potentially fair reasons:

Capability or qualifications
Conduct
Redundancy
Statutory prohibition
Some other substantial reason

The tribunal then considers whether dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Traditionally, this involves what lawyers call the band of reasonable responses test. A tribunal does not simply ask whether it would have made the same decision. Instead, it considers whether dismissal fell within the range of decisions that a reasonable employer could have made.

This gives employers considerable discretion.

Two reasonable employers might respond differently to the same problem. One might issue a final written warning. Another might dismiss. Depending on the circumstances, both decisions could fall within the permitted range.

The Government intends to replace that approach with an objective justification test for dismissals falling within the new protected period.

This test is familiar from parts of discrimination law under the Equality Act 2010.

An employer must identify a legitimate business objective and demonstrate that dismissing the employee was a proportionate means of achieving it.

The employer will ordinarily need to show that reasonably viable, less severe alternatives were not available.

That changes the nature of the argument.

It will no longer be sufficient simply to say that dismissal was a decision another reasonable employer might have reached. There will have to be a convincing explanation of why that decision was justified in the particular circumstances.

Consider an employee returning from maternity leave who is struggling with aspects of a changed role.

Under the proposed test, relevant questions might include whether appropriate training was provided, whether temporary adjustments could have been made and whether suitable alternative duties were available.

An employer who moved directly to dismissal without seriously considering such options could find the decision more difficult to defend.

This does not mean that employers must create jobs which do not exist or continue employment regardless of the consequences. The proportionality test will take account of the employer’s circumstances, including the size and resources of the organisation.

Nevertheless, it should require a more searching examination of the dismissal decision.

There is an important legal distinction here. The proposed objective justification test concerns the fairness of dismissals for potentially legitimate reasons. It does not provide a defence to a dismissal which is itself unlawful pregnancy or maternity discrimination.

An employer cannot make direct pregnancy discrimination lawful merely by describing it as commercially convenient.

Employers will retain the right to dismiss

Some campaigners had wanted the Government to go further by removing certain potentially fair reasons for dismissal during pregnancy and maternity.

That has not happened.

All five existing reasons will remain available.

Conduct, capability, redundancy, statutory prohibition and some other substantial reason may still provide grounds for dismissal, provided the employer can satisfy the stricter legal requirements.

There are circumstances where dismissal will plainly remain a possibility.

Serious misconduct, a genuine inability to perform essential duties or an unavoidable statutory prohibition may provide legitimate grounds. The new framework is not intended to make employees immune from dismissal.

But the employer’s justification will face closer examination.

A capability dismissal, for example, ought to be approached differently where pregnancy-related circumstances, a prolonged absence or a return from maternity leave have affected the employee’s ability to demonstrate performance.

The employer will need to consider what can reasonably be done to maintain the employment relationship.

The same principle applies to redundancy. Although a business may have genuine economic difficulties, the employer will have to justify dismissal under the new test as well as comply with the separate statutory redundancy safeguards.

The distinction between an employee’s actual conduct or capability and difficulties arising from pregnancy or maternity leave will therefore become particularly important.

For trade union representatives, this should provide additional grounds on which to challenge questionable disciplinary and capability decisions.

Protection from the first day of employment

One welcome aspect of the proposals is that the enhanced dismissal protection will be a day-one employment right.

There will be no qualifying period of service.

This is separate from the Government’s wider reform of ordinary unfair dismissal rights. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the general qualifying period is due to fall from two years to six months on 1 January 2027.

Pregnancy and maternity protections already include rights which apply without a minimum period of employment. The new enhanced test will follow that principle.

There is, however, an important qualification about when the additional protection begins.

The Government has decided that it will start when an employee informs her employer that she is pregnant.

That notification may be given verbally or in writing.

An employee does not have to submit a formal letter to trigger the proposed protection, although keeping written confirmation would be sensible. It could become important evidence if there were later disagreement about when the employer knew.

The requirement to notify should not be confused with the separate Equality Act framework, under which pregnancy and maternity discrimination protection already exists.

How long will employees be protected?

For pregnant employees entitled to maternity leave, the enhanced protection will begin when the employer is informed of the pregnancy and continue throughout maternity leave.

It will then last for six months after maternity leave ends.

An employee taking the full 52 weeks of statutory maternity leave would therefore receive protection for approximately 18 months after the child’s birth.

But the Government has deliberately rejected a universal 18-month period for this new dismissal protection.

An employee returning after a shorter period of maternity leave would receive six months of additional protection after that leave ended, rather than automatically remaining covered by the new test until the child reached 18 months.

The distinction is not insignificant.

A mother returning after three months of maternity leave may still face considerable difficulties connected with childcare, feeding arrangements, disrupted sleep or adjustment to her previous working routine.

Those problems do not necessarily disappear six months after her leave ends.

Indeed, the consultation revealed considerable support for longer protection.

Of the 843 respondents who answered the relevant question, 77% favoured protection lasting 18 months from birth, compared with 19% supporting six months following the return to work.

The Government nevertheless selected the shorter post-leave period, arguing that it provided stronger protection during the period of greatest vulnerability without unduly restricting employers in dealing with later performance or conduct issues.

That is a political and practical judgement which deserves scrutiny.

It is also important not to confuse these proposals with existing redundancy protection.

The current enhanced redundancy protections, which generally extend for 18 months after birth or adoption placement for the relevant eligible employees, will remain in place.

The new six-month post-leave period concerns the additional protection against dismissal more generally. It does not remove the longer statutory redundancy safeguards.

Pregnancy loss and the two-week rule

One of the less satisfactory aspects of the proposals concerns pregnancy loss.

Where a pregnancy ends before 24 weeks and the employee is not entitled to statutory maternity leave, the enhanced dismissal protection will continue for only two weeks after the pregnancy ends.

The Government has chosen to align this period with the existing redundancy protection rules.

It acknowledges that consultation respondents raised concerns about the physical and psychological effects of pregnancy loss, including the possibility of continuing disadvantage at work.

Those concerns are well founded.

An employee who has experienced a miscarriage may require time away from work, medical treatment or adjustments when returning. Recovery is not governed by a convenient timetable.

Two weeks is a very short period in which to address what may be a profoundly difficult experience.

The expiry of this specific enhanced protection would not extinguish other employment rights. Depending on the facts, discrimination law, sickness absence protections and other statutory provisions may remain relevant.

Nevertheless, the Government could reasonably have adopted a more generous approach.

A trade union should not have to argue that an employee deserves compassion because her circumstances happen to fall within a particular statutory category. Fair treatment should be expected.

Adoption, shared parental and other family leave

The proposals are not limited to employees who have personally experienced pregnancy.

The Government intends to extend the enhanced dismissal protections to employees taking adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave and bereaved partner’s paternity leave.

The arrangements will differ according to the type and duration of leave.

Employees taking adoption leave will be protected from the first day of that leave, with protection continuing for six months after it ends.

For shared parental leave, neonatal care leave and bereaved partner’s paternity leave, protection will also begin on the first day of the relevant leave.

However, the additional six-month protection after leave ends will apply only where the employee has taken at least six continuous weeks of the qualifying leave.

Someone taking a shorter period will receive the enhanced protection while on that leave but not the extra six-month period afterwards.

Ordinary paternity leave is not included in this particular enhanced dismissal scheme, although separate legal protections continue to apply.

This extension is welcome.

Family responsibilities do not fall exclusively upon mothers. Adoptive parents, those sharing parental leave and parents dealing with the serious illness of a newborn child may experience similar difficulties when returning to employment.

It is right that dismissal protections should recognise those circumstances.

Will the new rules make a difference in practice?

Much will depend upon the way the provisions operate once implemented.

The Government does not intend to prescribe every detail of the proportionality test in regulations. Instead, it plans to support implementation through guidance, including material produced by Acas.

Tribunal decisions will also be important in establishing how the test is applied.

There will inevitably be arguments about what constitutes a legitimate business aim, which alternatives an employer should have considered and when dismissal becomes a proportionate response.

The circumstances of the employer will matter.

A large organisation with numerous departments, extensive human resources support and a range of possible alternative posts may be expected to examine options unavailable to a small employer with only a handful of staff.

But proportionality must not become an excuse for accepting vague assertions about business difficulties.

Employers should be expected to produce evidence.

What was the problem? When was it identified? What support was offered? Were alternatives seriously examined? Was the employee consulted? Was dismissal genuinely necessary?

These questions should be central to any fair dismissal process.

There is also a danger that employers seeking to avoid the new protections may alter the way they approach recruitment, fixed-term employment or performance management.

Such concerns were raised during the consultation itself.

The possibility of discrimination being pushed into less obvious forms makes effective enforcement especially important.

What trade union representatives should look for

For unions, the proposed changes should strengthen the practical arguments available when representing members facing disciplinary action, capability proceedings or redundancy.

A representative should already be examining the employer’s reasons, the evidence supporting allegations and whether the correct procedures have been followed.

The new framework will make the examination of alternatives particularly important.

Where an employee is pregnant or has recently returned from qualifying family leave, a union representative should consider whether the employer has properly explored adjusted duties, additional training, temporary support, alternative employment or other realistic measures.

The timing of decisions may also be revealing.

Were concerns raised before the pregnancy was disclosed? Did the employee receive favourable appraisals before maternity leave? Were performance targets altered? Did another employee take over duties during the absence? Was the returning employee given a proper opportunity to resume the role?

None of these matters automatically establishes unlawful discrimination or unfair dismissal.

Taken together, however, they may provide an important picture of how the employer reached its decision.

Contemporaneous records will matter. Emails, performance reviews, meeting notes, correspondence about duties and records of requests for support may all become relevant evidence.

Members should keep such material where they are lawfully entitled to do so, and seek advice before removing confidential workplace documents.

The changes may also provide an opportunity to improve workplace policies before disputes arise.

Employers should review their disciplinary, capability, redundancy and family leave procedures to ensure that the requirements of the new framework are properly reflected.

Trade unions should press for consultation over those changes and seek stronger contractual safeguards wherever possible.

A statutory minimum should never be treated as the limit of what can be negotiated.

Better rights must mean better access to justice

There is another difficulty which should not be overlooked.

Employment rights depend upon effective enforcement.

An employee who has just lost her job may also be coping with the financial demands of a new child, disrupted childcare arrangements or the effects of pregnancy-related illness.

Bringing an employment tribunal claim requires knowledge, evidence, time and persistence.

Many workers will understandably be reluctant to pursue a case against an employer with greater financial and organisational resources.

The Government has already extended the main employment tribunal time limits from three to six months, with effect from 1 October 2026. Transitional rules mean that the shorter period may still apply to earlier disputes.

Employees should therefore obtain advice promptly rather than assume that they have six months in every case. Acas early conciliation requirements must also be considered.

These procedural matters may appear remote from the central issue of pregnancy discrimination. In practice, they can determine whether an employee ever receives a hearing.

The length of tribunal proceedings, the availability of advice and the financial pressures facing claimants can be just as important as the wording of legislation.

That is one reason why trade union representation remains essential.

A welcome reform, but not the end of the argument

The Government’s proposals represent a worthwhile improvement in employment protection.

The move towards objective justification should make it harder for employers to rely upon general assertions about performance, conduct or business requirements when dismissing employees during a particularly vulnerable period.

The extension to other forms of family leave is also sensible.

There are limitations.

The six-month period following maternity leave is shorter than many consultation respondents wanted. The two-week protection following early pregnancy loss appears particularly inadequate. And retaining all five potentially fair dismissal reasons means employers will continue to have considerable scope to argue that dismissal was legitimate.

The effectiveness of the reform will depend upon the final regulations, the guidance accompanying them and the willingness of tribunals to examine employers’ explanations critically.

Most importantly, it will depend upon employees knowing their rights and being able to enforce them.

Pregnancy, childbirth and family responsibilities are ordinary parts of working life. They should not place employees in a position where they must continually prove their value or justify their continued employment.

An employer facing genuine difficulties must be able to manage its business. But that does not mean dismissal should be the first solution considered, particularly where practical alternatives exist.

The law should require employers to demonstrate that they have acted fairly and that losing an employee’s livelihood was genuinely necessary.

The extension of dismissal protections for pregnant workers and new mothers addresses a long-standing concern within the labour movement. While legal safeguards already existed, many workers continued to report feeling vulnerable during pregnancy, maternity leave and their return to work. The new framework should make it more difficult for employers to rely on broad or poorly evidenced justifications when taking decisions that affect this group of workers.

For Solidarity, the task is to ensure that members benefit from these protections when they come into force, while continuing to argue for stronger safeguards through collective bargaining, workplace representation and improvements to the law.

The reforms represent one of the most substantial changes to dismissal law in recent decades and should improve security for many workers. However, no legislation can entirely remove the imbalance of power that often exists between employers and employees. Strong legal rights are most effective when workers understand them, are prepared to enforce them and have access to collective representation. Trade unions will therefore continue to play a vital role in ensuring that the protections promised by Parliament are realised in practice within the workplace.

Legal position: This article reflects the Government’s consultation response published on 22 October 2026. The enhanced dismissal protections are intended to take effect in October 2027, subject to implementing regulations. They apply to the employment law framework in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has separate employment legislation.

Further reading: Government consultation response, 22 October 2026 | Acas: Redundancy protection for pregnancy and new parents | Acas: Employment Rights Act 2025

Ending Zero-Hours Contracts? Not If Workers Remain Insecure

What good is banning zero-hours contracts if workers still don’t know what they’ll earn next week?

That is the question ministers need to answer as concerns grow over how Labour’s promised reforms to insecure work will operate in practice. When Labour pledged to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, millions of workers welcomed the announcement. After years of uncertainty, many hoped it would mark a genuine shift in the balance of power at work. The principle sounded straightforward: if a worker regularly works certain hours, their contract should reflect those hours. No more contractual fiction. No more employers demanding flexibility without offering security in return. No more workers left guessing how much money they will take home at the end of the month.

However, as details emerge about how the reforms may be implemented, an uncomfortable question is beginning to surface. Are we actually ending insecure work, or are we simply changing the language used to describe it?

For years, zero-hours contracts have become the symbol of workplace insecurity. The criticism has always been simple. Workers are expected to remain available for work, yet employers are under little obligation to provide predictable hours or a stable income. The consequences extend far beyond the workplace. Workers struggle to budget, families struggle to plan, childcare arrangements become difficult to organise and mortgages become harder to obtain. Entire lives are built around uncertainty. This is why so many workers welcomed Labour’s commitment to act.

Yet the deeper issue has never been the label attached to a contract. The real problem has always been insecurity itself. That is why the debate surrounding eligibility thresholds for guaranteed-hours contracts matters so much.

On the surface, discussions about thresholds and qualifying periods sound dry and technical. In reality, they could determine whether the reforms succeed or fail. Trade unions have warned that depending on where ministers set the threshold, large numbers of workers could find themselves excluded from the very protections they were promised.

Consider a typical retail worker. Let’s call them Sam. On paper, Sam has a contract guaranteeing twenty-one hours of work each week. In reality, she regularly works thirty hours or more. Those additional hours are not a luxury. They are not occasional overtime that provides extra spending money. They are the hours that pay the rent, cover household bills and put food on the table.

The difficulty is that many of those hours remain dependent on management discretion. They can be reduced, rearranged or withdrawn altogether. The contract presents one picture of Sam’s working life, while the reality presents another. And workers do not live their lives according to what appears on paper. They live according to the hours they actually work and the income they actually receive.

This is the concern many unions are raising. If employers simply move workers from zero-hours contracts onto short-hours contracts while continuing to rely on substantial additional discretionary hours, much of the insecurity remains intact. The terminology changes. The worker’s experience does not. The headline announces reform, but everyday life carries on exactly as before.

Workers did not vote for a new description of insecurity. They voted for greater security. They voted for predictable incomes, stable employment and contracts that reflect reality. They voted for a system that would allow them to build a future with confidence rather than uncertainty.

Security at work is about far more than the number printed on a contract. It also affects confidence and workplace culture. Imagine challenging unfair treatment, reporting bullying or raising concerns about safety while knowing that a significant proportion of your income depends on additional shifts being allocated by management. Some workers will still speak out. Many others will think twice. Not because they lack courage, but because they have responsibilities. Rent must be paid. Children must be fed. Bills continue arriving regardless of workplace disputes.

This is why secure contracts matter. Employment rights are not merely legal protections; they are practical tools that help balance power between employers and workers. Without that balance, insecurity can quickly become a means of control.

To be fair, the Government deserves credit for recognising that the existing system is failing too many people. For years, workers have carried the burden of flexibility while employers have enjoyed most of the benefits. The intention behind reform is welcome. But intentions alone do not improve people’s lives.

Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged by a very simple standard. Do workers feel more secure? Can they rely on their income from one month to the next? Can they arrange childcare, plan family finances and look ahead with confidence? Can they challenge poor treatment without fearing the loss of essential hours?

If the answer is yes, then the reforms will have delivered meaningful change. If the answer is no, Britain will simply have replaced one form of insecurity with another.

The principle should not be controversial. If someone regularly works thirty hours a week, their contract should reflect thirty hours a week. If someone’s livelihood depends on those hours, those hours should not be treated as optional.

That is not a radical demand. It is common sense.

For too long, flexibility has operated as a one-way street. Employers received certainty while workers absorbed the risk. A fair labour market requires a better balance than that. Security at work should not be a privilege enjoyed by the lucky few. It should be the foundation of decent employment for everyone.

By Maria Camara

When the Weather Turns Against Workers: How Trade Unions Are Winning New Protections

For generations, workplace safety campaigns centred on machinery, chemicals, noise and manual handling. Today, another issue is moving rapidly up the union agenda: extreme weather.

Whether it is bus drivers trapped in overheating cabs, postal workers walking miles in soaring temperatures, or probation staff traveling through floods and storms unions across Britain are increasingly treating severe weather as a workplace safety issue rather than an unavoidable inconvenience.

That shift matters because workers are often the first to experience the consequences of extreme conditions. Long before government agencies issue guidance or employers update policies, drivers, delivery workers, construction workers, teachers, cleaners, caterers and transport staff are dealing with the reality on the ground.

From collective bargaining to industrial action, unions are forcing employers to recognise a simple principle: workers should not have to risk their health simply to do their jobs.

The London Bus Drivers Who Refused to “Sweat It Out”

One of the clearest examples of workers taking collective action over weather-related conditions came in 2026 when around 1,500 Unite members employed by Arriva North London took strike action over excessive temperatures inside bus cabs. Many vehicles were fitted only with air-cooling systems rather than proper air conditioning.

According to Unite, drivers reported cab temperatures reaching 40°C or higher during periods of exceptionally hot weather. The union argued that the conditions increased the risk of fatigue, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

The dispute demonstrated how workplace safety concerns can become industrial relations issues when employers fail to act quickly enough.

After industrial action and negotiations, drivers secured what Unite described as a “groundbreaking” agreement. Arriva committed to fitting air conditioning to buses by May 2027 and accepted a new rule that buses with defective heating or cooling systems would be withdrawn from service after 35 minutes rather than leaving drivers exposed for extended periods.

Unite national lead officer Onay Kasab summed up the significance of the victory:

“This is an excellent win for our members, who stood together on picket lines to fight for and win an agreement that means that drivers are not simply expected to sweat it out.”

The dispute set an important precedent. It showed that workers could move beyond simply reporting unsafe conditions and instead win enforceable protections through collective action. It also shows how union action can benefit the wider community by improving conditions in areas used by all.

From Heatwaves to Snowstorms: The Napo Warning

The concerns extend far beyond transport.

The probation union Napo has argued that severe weather should become a permanent item on health and safety agendas throughout the Probation Service. Members routinely work through heatwaves, flooding, storms, poor air quality, snow and ice while conducting home visits and community appointments.

Napo’s position is notable because it places weather-related risks alongside more traditional occupational health concerns. The union argues that weather conditions can affect not only workers but also vulnerable people under probation supervision.

The union has called for clear national guidance covering issues such as:

Dynamic risk assessments during weather alerts.
Safe travel arrangements.
Postponement of journeys where necessary.
Home working and remote appointments.
Additional protections for vulnerable staff.
Emergency contingency plans.

As Napo put it, “extreme weather” is not simply an environmental concern but “a workplace, health and safety issue.”

Postal Workers Push for Stronger Heat Protections

Communication Workers Union (CWU) members provide another example of how unions are driving workplace change.

Postal workers spend long hours outdoors and are particularly vulnerable during periods of high temperatures. Following severe heat episodes, the CWU negotiated enhanced guidance with Royal Mail covering heat-related risks. The guidance requires formal assessments, consultation with union safety representatives, support for vulnerable workers and adjustments to duties during weather alerts.

The union has consistently argued that heat exposure should be treated like any other workplace hazard.

That approach has increasingly gained traction throughout the labour movement. Rather than accepting weather conditions as unavoidable, unions have argued that employers must identify risks, assess them and take practical steps to reduce them.

The Growing Campaign for Temperature Standards

A wider campaign has also emerged around the absence of legally defined maximum workplace temperatures.

Trade unions have long criticised the fact that UK law requires workplaces to be kept at a “reasonable” temperature but does not establish a clear upper limit.

The Trades Union Congress has responded by organising workplace inspections, producing model agreements and encouraging union health and safety representatives to challenge unsafe conditions. During its workplace heat campaign, more than 1,000 union health and safety representatives participated in inspections aimed at identifying excessive temperature risks.

The movement’s argument is straightforward. Workers in offices, warehouses, kitchens, buses, rail depots, factories and construction sites should have access to clear protections rather than vague assurances.

Industrial Action Over Safety Is Nothing New

The recent focus on weather-related risks fits into a much longer trade union tradition.

Workers have repeatedly used industrial action to address safety concerns when employers failed to respond adequately.

A Return to Core Trade Union Values

There is a tendency to view extreme weather solely through the lens of public policy or environmental debate. Trade unionists tend to see it differently.

The real question is practical.

Can a bus driver work safely inside an overheated cab?

Can a postal worker complete a delivery round during a heat alert without adequate protection?

Can a probation officer travel safely during flooding or severe storms?

Can employers demonstrate they have assessed the risks and taken reasonable steps to reduce them?

Across Britain, unions are increasingly insisting that the answer to those questions must be yes.

The victories won by London bus drivers, the campaigns mounted by postal workers, and the demands from probation staff all point in the same direction. Workers are no longer prepared to accept that severe weather is simply something they must endure.

Instead, they are using the most powerful tools available to them, organisation, collective bargaining and, when necessary, industrial action, to ensure that workplace safety keeps pace with the realities of modern working life.

Because when temperatures soar, storms hit or conditions become dangerous, health and safety cannot be treated as an afterthought. It has to be the first priority.

By Maria Camara

Farage is No Friend of Working People: A Personal View from Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity

The recent successes of Reform UK at the ballot box – including a by-election win in Runcorn and the Doncaster mayoralty – have understandably caused a stir in political and trade union circles. As General Secretary of Solidarity, I believe we must take these developments seriously and respond with clarity and resolve. Let me be clear: in my personal opinion, Nigel Farage is no friend of working people.

I understand why some working-class voters are tempted by Farage and his Reform UK movement. They are fed up. Years of neglect, stagnant wages, crumbling public services, and a political establishment that appears more interested in spin than substance have left many disillusioned. Farage appears to speak plainly and taps into genuine frustrations. That appeal should not be dismissed or ridiculed. But it should be challenged, because behind the rhetoric lies a record that working people must be made aware of.

Farage’s Voting Record: Repeatedly Opposed to Workers’ Rights

As the Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently revealed, Farage’s voting record speaks volumes. Time and again, he has voted against the interests of the very people he claims to represent:

He voted against banning zero-hours contracts, which trap workers in uncertainty and insecurity.
He opposed banning ‘fire and rehire’, a cruel tactic allowing employers to sack workers and offer them worse terms.
He voted against sick pay from day one, leaving workers vulnerable when they fall ill.
He rejected stronger protections for pregnant workers.
He voted against collective bargaining rights and trade union access in workplaces.

This isn’t a handful of votes taken out of context. It’s a pattern. A worldview that prioritises deregulation, corporate interests and weakening the power of organised labour. That’s why the focus of all trade unions, in my view, must be on exposing this anti-worker record every time Reform UK is discussed.

Farage’s Persona vs. Farage’s Politics

Farage has built his brand as an anti-establishment rebel. Many see him as someone who is willing to say what others won’t. But we must ask: who benefits from his policies? Paul Nowak of the TUC put it well when he described Farage as a “political fraud cosplaying as a working-class champion.”

Reform UK’s economic platform, far from supporting workers, offers a Thatcherite rehash:

£50 billion in public service cuts.
Slashing corporation tax from 25% to 15%, giving more to big business.
No plan for raising wages or expanding workplace rights.

This is not a programme for social justice or economic renewal. It’s the same old trickle-down economics, dressed up with a Union Jack.

Understanding the Appeal, Changing the Conversation

To defeat Farage and Reform UK, we must first understand why their message resonates. People are angry – and rightly so. But anger must be channelled toward those responsible: the employers who exploit, the politicians who betray, the system that puts profit over people.

The job of trade unions is not only to defend workers at the workplace but also to provide clarity in the public debate where workers rights are at issue. In that spirit, I urge all unions to put Reform UK’s record on workers’ rights front and centre in our campaigning.

We need to:

Challenge the myth that Farage stands with ordinary people.
Remind voters what his voting record really says.
Offer a clear, alternative vision rooted in solidarity, justice, and dignity at work.

What Solidarity Stands For

At Solidarity, we stand unapologetically for working people. That means:

Fighting for secure jobs and decent pay.
Defending collective bargaining and union rights.
Demanding fair sick pay, pensions, and protection for the vulnerable.
Building unity, not scapegoating the marginalised.

We also believe in having an open, honest discussion about migration, immigration and refugee policy. That conversation should aim to achieve a fair and humane policy – one that is grounded in reality and guided by compassion, while also maintaining the support of the British people. We want a harmonious national consensus, not culture wars or scapegoating.

The future for our class will not be won by blaming migrants, attacking public services, or cutting taxes for the rich. It will be won by building power from the ground up.

Nigel Farage may talk like he understands working people, but his record shows otherwise. Let’s make sure everyone knows it.

In solidarity,

Pat Harrington
General Secretary, Solidarity

Defend the right to protest, defend the right to strike!

Key rights are under attack in Britain. As the Tory government faces widespread opposition in workplaces and on the streets they are seeking to bring in laws to shut down the protests. They are attacking our right to strike and our right to demonstrate. Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity, said: “It’s no coincidence that both the right to protest and the right to strike are under attack. The attacks are linked and so should our response to them be.”

Defend the right to protest

Protest is a form of nonviolent direct action that allows people to voice their grievances and demands in public. It is a way of engaging in the civic space and has been instrumental in achieving human rights through actions such as strikes, marches, sit-ins, and civil disobedience. Protests have played a significant role in liberation and justice movements and continue to impact change through creative and diverse forms. Throughout history, protests have led to positive change, although it often requires strong social movements, persistence, and participation. Despite attempts by authorities to suppress protests, their influence and legacy can be seen years later through changing social norms and laws. The power of protests lies in highlighting the lack of legitimacy of repressive power structures, raising awareness, and contributing to the gradual change of language, minds, and behaviours until a tipping point is reached. Over time, these processes have led to improvements in various issues such as governance, labour conditions, gender equality, environmental protection, and more.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty UK’s Chief Executive Director said:

“It follows a pattern of a government voicing support for protest around the world but cracking down on the right to speak up here at home.”

These new attempts to reduce protest rights are in breach of international human rights law. On September 2020, the UN Human Rights Council General Comment on the right to peaceful assembly stated:

“State parties should not rely on a vague definition of ‘public order’ to justify overbroad restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly. Peaceful assemblies can in some cases be inherently or deliberately disruptive and require a significant degree of toleration.”

For example, the government proposed Serious Disruption Prevention Orders go even further than Russian Law on Assemblies. In Russia, people convicted of protest-related offences are not allowed to organise protests. If the Public Order Bill passes, people convicted for protesting would not even be allowed to participate.

Defend the right to strike

The UK government’s proposed Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill has sparked controversy as it aims to limit the right to strike of workers in key public services such as health, education, transport and more. Many human rights defenders say that the bill is a direct attack on workers and their trade unions and instead of addressing the issues that lead to strikes, the government is making it harder for workers to win fair pay. The bill allows the government to set “minimum service levels” for public services, but with no detail on the limits, the government may impose restrictions without agreement with unions. The bill also gives employers the right to serve the union with a “work notice” specifying the number of workers required to work during the strike and mandates the union to ensure compliance, which the union claims would force them to break the strike. The bill removes protection for striking workers, allowing employers to dismiss those who take part in lawful industrial action and making unions liable for up to £1 million if they do not attempt to force striking workers to work, which will limit the right to withdraw labour.

The right to strike is a fundamental aspect of workers’ rights and a cornerstone of a just society. It provides workers with a means of bargaining for better wages, working conditions, and overall treatment from their employers. Without the right to strike, workers would have no way of leveraging their power and making their voices heard, leading to a situation where employers hold all the power in the workplace.

One of the main reasons why the right to strike is so important is that it helps to balance the power dynamic between workers and employers. Workers, particularly those who are low-paid or in low-skilled jobs, often face challenging working conditions and limited opportunities for advancement. By striking, they can draw attention to their grievances and force employers to take their concerns seriously. This, in turn, helps to create a more equitable and just workplace, where workers are treated with dignity and respect.

Another reason why the right to strike is important is that it provides workers with a way of seeking fair compensation for their labor. In many cases, workers are not paid a living wage and are unable to make ends meet, even when working full-time. By striking, workers can demand better wages and benefits, helping to ensure that they are able to provide for themselves and their families.

Strikes can also play a key role in promoting social justice and advancing human rights. For example, the right to strike has been instrumental in achieving many of the key labor rights that workers enjoy today, such as the minimum wage, paid holidays, and the right to form a union. By striking, workers can put pressure on governments and employers to make positive changes that benefit not just themselves, but society as a whole.

Finally, the right to strike is also important because it is a key component of democratic societies. Workers have the right to express their opinions and demand change, just like any other citizen. By striking, they can make their voices heard and contribute to the democratic process, helping to create a more inclusive and equitable society.

Unions Must Fight Back Against Mainstream Media Bias

Unions play a vital role in ensuring that the rights and interests of workers are protected. However, in order for unions to be effective, they must be able to communicate their message to the public. Unfortunately, relying on the mainstream media to disseminate information about unions can be problematic.

One major issue with relying on the mainstream media to put union message across is that the media often presents a biased perspective on labour issues. Mainstream news outlets are often owned by large corporations, which have a vested interest in portraying unions in a negative light. As a result, the media often focuses on stories that highlight conflicts between unions and management, while downplaying the positive contributions that unions make to the economy and society.

Another problem with relying on the mainstream media to disseminate information about unions is that the media often oversimplifies complex issues. For example, the media may portray a labour strike as a simple dispute between management and workers, rather than as a complex struggle over economic and political power. This oversimplification can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of support for union efforts.

Given these issues, it is essential that unions do not rely solely on the mainstream media to put their message across. Instead, unions must support efforts to build a counter media that can provide a more accurate and nuanced perspective on labour issues. This might include supporting alternative news outlets, such as labour newspapers or online publications, that are more likely to be sympathetic to union issues. Additionally, unions can use social media and other digital platforms to communicate directly with workers and the public, bypassing the mainstream media altogether.

Unions play an important role in protecting the rights and interests of workers. However, to be effective, unions must be able to communicate their message to the public. Relying solely on the mainstream media to disseminate information about unions is problematic due to bias and oversimplification of complex issues. Therefore, Unions must support efforts to build a counter media that can provide a more accurate and nuanced perspective on labour issues. This will help to ensure that the public has a better understanding of the vital role that unions play in our society.

Solidarity’s is assisting with Union News, a weekly podcast, and it’s a great example of how unions can support the development of a counter media. By assisting this podcast, Solidarity helps reach a wider audience, and provide a platform for discussing important labor issues in a more engaging and accessible way than traditional news outlets.

In addition to Union News, supporting established ventures like the Morning Star daily newspaper and Workers magazine is also important. Both of these publications have a long history of providing a pro-labour perspective on news and issues, and they can serve as valuable resources for union members and supporters.

New Anti-Strike Legislation: A Direct Attack on Workers’ Rights and Democracy

The government’s new anti-strike legislation, which aims to enforce “minimum service levels” in key public sectors including the NHS and schools, has met with fierce opposition from unions and criticism from experts.

The proposed Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is being seen as a direct attack on workers’ fundamental human rights and an affront to parliamentary democracy. The Bill will apply to strikes in six essential sectors: health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, nuclear decommissioning, and border security. These are the same six services identified in the previous Trade Union Act 2016, which already imposed strict requirements for strike mandates to have the support of at least 40% of those eligible to vote as well as a majority of those voting.

The Bill goes even further, however, by removing the requirement for minimum service levels (MSLs) to be negotiated by agreement between trade unions and employers, and instead gives complete discretion to the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, to set the MSLs in each of the six services. This means that the MSLs can be set at such a high level that any strike will be rendered largely ineffective.

Furthermore, the Bill is a worrying symptom of how the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has become not only the friend of employers but also an instrument of the coercive state. Despite the government’s claims of respecting the right to strike, the Bill effectively renders the right to strike to be nothing more than a right to make a meaningless protest. The Bill also includes disproportionate sanctions to ensure obedience to the will of the state, further undermining workers’ rights.

Under the new law, bosses in health, education, fire, ambulance, rail and nuclear commissioning will be able to sue unions and sack employees if minimum levels are not met. Union members who refuse to work under the minimum service requirement could lose their jobs. The new law will also back employers bringing an injunction to prevent strikes or seeking damages afterwards if they go ahead.

This Bill is a dangerous and undemocratic attempt to silence workers and deny them their basic human rights. It must be opposed by all those who value democracy and workers’ rights. Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, has pledged to repeal the anti-trade union legislation if Labour forms the next government.

Defend Workers’ Rights

Liz Truss has been urged to “come clean” over her plans to attack workers’ rights.

Earlier this week, The Times reported that Truss was considering a review of workers’ protections.

Among the protections to be reviewed by the Truss will be the laws covering the 48-hour working week, adopted as part of the EU working time directive. The strike ballot support threshold may also be raised to 50% of all eligible voters and the strike notice may be extended from two to four weeks.

Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady said Ms. Truss should “come clean” about any such plans.

“Liz Truss’s number one priority should be to help families pay their bills this winter,” Ms. O’Grady said.

“Threatening hard-won workers’ rights is the last thing the country and working people need.”

Petros Elia, general secretary for United Voices of the World, said:

“These measures are designed to try to shut us up and shut us down. But we won’t be intimidated. Britain already has the most stringent anti-union laws in Europe and here workers’ rights are regularly violated according to The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) Global ranking. We will resist and defeat these attempts to shackle us and turn this country into a worker’s gulag. We urge every single worker out there who is not yet unionised to join us so we can fight as one and win.”

Patrick Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union, commented:

“Unions exist to defend the rights of workers. Attacks on these rights will be defeated by the union movement and our small union will play its part.”