Employment law round-up: October 2026

There have been a number of important employment law developments in recent weeks, with some changes already in force and further reforms due later this month.

These changes mainly arise under the Employment Rights Act 2025 and, for right to work checks, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In this month’s update, we look at the key developments and what they mean for employers in practice.

Employment Tribunal time limits extended

From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims increased from three months to six months. This includes claims such as unfair dismissal and discrimination, as well as claims relating to part-time and fixed-term workers, blacklisting, zero-hours contracts, information and consultation and, in England and Wales, breach of contract.

The six-month time limit generally applies where the effective date of termination, or the act or omission giving rise to the claim, falls on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to an earlier date generally remain subject to the previous three-month limit. The Acas early conciliation rules are not affected by this change; early conciliation has lasted 12 weeks since December 2025.

For employers, the change means claims may now be brought considerably later, making it particularly important to retain relevant documents and evidence following dismissals and other workplace disputes.

Right to work checks extended beyond employees

From 1 October 2026, under section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, right to work checks were extended beyond employees to cover a wider range of working arrangements.

Businesses must now carry out the prescribed right to work checks where they engage certain individuals who are not employees, including workers engaged under a contract to personally perform work or services and individual subcontractors. The regime has also been extended to certain arrangements involving online matching services, where individuals are matched with people or businesses seeking their services. For these new categories, civil penalties apply only to engagements starting on or after 1 October 2026.

The changes are intended to close gaps in the previous regime where individuals could undertake work other than under a traditional contract of employment without being subject to the same right to work requirements. Businesses can also face extended liability where work is delivered through a contractual chain, an online matching service or a contract permitting substitution, even without a direct contract with the individual. That liability can only be avoided where prescribed contractual terms are in place in writing before work begins and the business has systems to confirm who is doing the work.

Employers and businesses using contractors, casual workers and other non-employee labour should therefore review their existing arrangements to establish who now falls within the extended regime and ensure the appropriate checks are carried out before relevant work begins. This should include reviewing contracts with agencies and subcontractors.

Further Employment Rights Act changes from 30 October

A further set of Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms will come into force on 30 October 2026.

The existing duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment will be strengthened, requiring employers to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. A new duty will also make employers liable where employees are harassed by third parties, such as customers and clients, in relation to any protected characteristic, unless the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent it.

A number of trade union reforms will also take effect, including new rights for qualifying trade unions to request access to workplaces for specified purposes, including meeting, supporting and recruiting workers. Changes will also be made to the statutory recognition regime and to the provision of facilities for trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives. The new duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union, originally due on 30 October, has been delayed until January 2027.

Employers should review whether their existing measures for preventing harassment are sufficient, including where employees interact with customers, clients or other third parties. Employers should also familiarise themselves with the new trade union access arrangements and consider how requests for access will be handled in practice.

Government confirms plans to reform non-compete clauses

The government has confirmed that it intends to legislate to reform the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. The Prime Minister announced the plans on 9 October 2026, and further detail is expected alongside the Budget on 28 October 2026. The government has also said it will look at wider restrictive practices, starting with notice periods.

The detail of the reforms has not yet been confirmed, including whether non-compete clauses will be banned entirely or restricted in their duration or application. There is therefore no immediate change for employers, but this will be an important development to watch for businesses that rely on post-termination restrictions to protect their interests.

Case law update: neurodiversity and recruitment

In Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026], an autistic job applicant with dyslexia brought disability discrimination claims following an unsuccessful interview.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the dismissal of his reasonable adjustments claim, finding that requiring the employer to ask only “yes or no” questions would have undermined its ability to assess his suitability for the role. However, it allowed his discrimination arising from disability appeal because the Employment Tribunal had relied on the interviewer’s view that he did not appear stressed, without considering whether his autism might affect how he experienced or displayed stress. The claim has been sent back to a new tribunal to be heard afresh.

The case highlights the importance of considering how a person’s disability may affect their behaviour, rather than judging it against neurotypical expectations.