Trade Union Right of Access Code of Practice

Passports at the boarding gate

When Collaboration Turns into Conflict: Who Really Has Power in Your Business? 

The UK Immigration Landscape Is Shifting – What Boards Need to Know Now 

Director Identity Verification: A New Governance Tripwire for Boards 

The Employment Rights Bill: Board-level reckoning

From 1 December 2025, the ACAS early conciliation period will be extended from 6 to 12 weeks. The change, made through the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, is intended to give parties more opportunity to resolve disputes before Employment Tribunal proceedings begin. What’s changing Until now, parties to an employment dispute had up to 6 weeks to attempt once a potential claimant contacted ACAS. From 1 December 2025, that window of opportunity has doubled to 12 weeks, and time limits for bringing a claim remain “paused” throughout that period. It is worth remembering that the whole concept of mandatory early conciliation was the brainchild of ACAS from the outset. The Government says the extension is designed to ease the pressure on ACAS itself, which is currently struggling with very high case volumes, and often unable to contact parties until the end of the 6-week period – sometimes not at all. In practice, this means it could be months from the original workplace incident before an ET1 claim form is lodged and (from our own experience) a further 8-10 weeks before the Respondent is notified. While this may reduce the number of claims that reach the Tribunal, it will also extend the period of uncertainty for all involved. Why this matters At Boardside Law, we support the drive for early resolution, but simply lengthening the window is not a complete solution. Without a more effective case-management mechanism, and without promoting genuine alternative resolution, this change risks delaying clarity rather than facilitating it. Twelve weeks may sound reasonable. In reality, it increases the risks that: · evidence deteriorates; · memories fade; · witnesses move on; and · organisational understanding becomes fragmented. A longer pause makes it harder for employers to investigate fairly and respond properly if the matter later proceeds to litigation. We also see a major gap in the current process: employer notification. At present, ACAS often contacts the employer only if the claimant expressly agrees to conciliation. If the claimant opts out, or indeed where ACAS is too stretched to engage until late in the window (if at all), the employer may be unaware that a claim is brewing until the ET1 arrives. That is potentially an avoidable shock. In our view, ACAS should be required to notify an employer as soon as early conciliation is initiated, even if the claimant later declines to engage, particularly where the employment relationship has already ended. Early transparency would support both sides, make evidence-gathering meaningful, and enhance the value of conciliation. That said, we do understand the risk this may introduce for claimants, so thought around the process/procedure will be needed. Practical advice Use the 12 week period wisely: Treat ACAS notifications as red alerts: they are early indicators of litigation risk. Escalate immediately to HR and legal teams. Preserve the record: secure witness statements, key emails and documents while memories are fresh. Don’t drift: even though the time limit is paused, momentum is vital. Set internal deadlines for reviewing facts and exploring settlement options. Push for dialogue: if you do not hear from ACAS within a reasonable time, consider reaching out proactively. A managed discussion now is usually cheaper, and calmer, than a hearing later. Stay alert to timing: the 12-week window pauses time, but it does not rest it. Monitor dates closely. Boardside’s View The new 12-week conciliation model risks turning “early conciliation” into “prolonged pre-litigation uncertainty.” If ACAS is to make the new system work, communication with employers must improve and be meaningful, as opposed to a further opportunity to delay the process. Knowing that a claim may be coming may allow employers to act quickly, investigate fairly, and even resolve issues before lawyers or tribunals are needed. Until the procedural gap is addressed, employers should assume that any ACAS contact marks the start of a live dispute and manage risk from the earliest possible moment. For advice on managing early conciliation strategy, evidence preservation or internal case preparation, please contact the Boardside Employment Team.

There has been an understandable flurry of commentary and media interest this week concerning certain anticipated changes to employment law in the UK (under the Government’s Employment Rights Bill). Much of this has centred on the latest announcement (27 November 2025) that the unfair dismissal qualifying period will not become a so-called “Day One” right after all, but will instead be set at six months. Like many others, I am pleased to see that the Government appears to have given way to good sense in this respect. The ability for employers to operate meaningful probationary periods for new starters, without the immediate risk of an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, remains an important safeguard for businesses. It gives organisations the space to assess cultural fit, performance, behaviours and potential, before long-term employment rights attach. However, nothing (at least not much!) is black and white in the world of employment law, and there is a significant counterweight. The accompanying proposal to “lift” the cap on unfair dismissal compensation (currently £118,223) could fundamentally alter the litigation landscape — especially for senior executives. What “lifting” means in practice is still unclear: raising the cap, removing it entirely, or adjusting the 52-week calculation. What is clear is that uncapped awards would widen recoverable loss, including shares, consideration of LTIP awards, pensions and discretionary bonuses. Such a change brings high-earning executives into the litigation mix like never before, and advisers will need to engage in much more complex valuation exercises when negotiating exits and dealing with disputes. For Boards and senior leadership teams, the message is clear: performance management, incentives, governance frameworks and the quality of decision-making at senior level will all come under sharper scrutiny. Culture, fairness and process will matter even more. We now await the full detail. Whatever comes, Company Boards should begin planning for a world in which senior-level disputes carry greater financial and reputational stakes — and where early, strategic guidance is essential. Boardside already has a great deal of experience in advising Boards and directors. We would be delighted to support you. 

What’s happening On 14 October 2025, the Home Office published its latest Statement of Changes (HC 1333), introducing the next phase of the government’s plan to ‘restore control’ over the immigration system. These changes implement key proposals from the May 2025 Immigration White Paper and represent one of the most significant overhauls of the UK’s immigration framework in recent years. The reforms affect work, study and family routes, with new eligibility criteria, shorter visa durations, and increased financial obligations for sponsors. While the stated aim is to strengthen integration and ensure the UK’s immigration system better serves economic and social priorities, the practical effect for many employers will be tighter compliance obligations, higher costs, and narrower access to international talent. Raising the English Language Requirement From 8 January 2026, applicants under the Skilled Worker, Scale-Up, and High Potential Individual (HPI) routes will need to demonstrate English language ability at B2 level (upper intermediate) under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) — up from the current B1 (intermediate) standard. Applicants will be required (as is currently the case) to evidence their proficiency through approved Home Office test providers, as part of a broader policy drive to ensure migrant workers can fully engage in the UK workplace and wider community. What this means for employers: The higher threshold could make it harder to fill roles in sectors that previously relied on B1-level applicants, such as healthcare, engineering, hospitality, and construction. Employers should review upcoming sponsorship plans, identify candidates likely to be affected, and consider offering language-support initiatives or alternative recruitment strategies. Shortening of the Graduate Route From 1 January 2027, the Graduate visa will be shortened from 24 months to 18 months for most graduates, although PhD holders will retain their existing three-year permission. Impact: This shorter post-study window reduces the time international graduates have to secure longer-term sponsorship. Employers will need to accelerate onboarding and visa-switch processes to ensure promising graduates can move to the Skilled Worker route before their Graduate visa expires. Combined with the higher salary and skill thresholds introduced earlier this year, many sponsors may find that graduates once eligible for sponsorship now fall short of the new requirements. Expansion and Cap of the High Potential Individual Route The High Potential Individual (HPI) visa is open to graduates from top global universities, allowing for a stay of up to 2 years for graduates and 3 years for students with a PhD. Under current plans, this route will be expanded, doubling the number of universities on the Global Universities List for qualifications awarded between 1 November 2025 and 31 October 2026. However, a new annual cap of 8,000 applications will take effect from 4 November 2025. Impact: While this widens access to high-calibre international talent, the introduction of a quota will make early applications essential. Employers recruiting graduates via this route should monitor availability closely and plan recruitment cycles around the cap. New Opportunities for Student Entrepreneurs From 25 November 2025, certain international students completing their studies will be permitted to establish UK-based businesses by switching to the Innovator Founder route. For students completing their studies, switching directly into this route whilst remaining in the UK removes the disruption of having to leave the UK, and enables them to progress from academic research into commercial ventures straight after graduation. Impact: This welcome adjustment supports entrepreneurship among international graduates and may help retain talent in innovation-led sectors. However, eligibility remains narrow, limited to those switching into the Innovator Founder route, and is therefore unlikely to benefit the majority of students. Increase in the Immigration Skills Charge The Immigration Skills Charge, which is payable by sponsors for each sponsored worker, will rise by 32% from 16 December 2025. Large sponsors will pay £1,320 per worker per year (up from £1,000), and small sponsors £480 (up from £364). Impact: This cost cannot lawfully be passed on to sponsored employees and will therefore need to be absorbed by employers. Combined with higher salary thresholds and Certificate of Sponsorship fees introduced earlier in the year, this increase will further strain recruitment budgets. Strategic Implications for Employers Together, these reforms mark a decisive shift toward a high-skill, high-threshold immigration system. Employers should respond proactively by: reviewing recruitment pipelines: assess how higher language standards and shorter visa durations affect planned hires; updating sponsorship policies: ensure systems meet enhanced record-keeping and reporting standards; budgeting for cost increases: reflect the new Skills Charge and compliance costs in workforce planning; supporting candidates: offer language-testing guidance and clear communication about timing and documentation; monitoring developments: further secondary legislation is expected in early 2026, so vigilance will be essential. Boardside View While these reforms are positioned as measures to improve control and integration, they risk reducing workforce flexibility and increasing administrative burdens for employers. Businesses that begin adjusting now, by aligning hiring, sponsorship and compliance frameworks, will be best placed to maintain continuity and competitiveness in 2026 and beyond.

In any business, when the wrong person signs something off (or the right person is not given clear authority to take a decision) the result can be costly. A simple example, based on our experience, is where an employee receives incoming correspondence or an invoice asking for a countersignature on a recurring software subscription or licence renewal, and signs it without checking the terms. Months later, the business is locked into an unnecessary spend that no one intended. That’s why a clear delegated authority policy isn’t just best practice, it’s a vital safeguard. It sets out who can commit the business to what, prevents avoidable costs and liabilities and gives everyone the confidence to act within their limits. What Is Delegated Authority? A delegated authority policy sets out who within an organisation can approve which actions. It typically includes guidance on which roles can enter into financial commitments (usually with different financial limits depending on seniority), who can enter into contracts, who can hire staff and who has signature authority for different types of documents. It ensures everyone knows: What decisions they’re empowered to make What signatures or approvals are required, and who can give them What limits are in place (financial, operational, reputational) to protect the organisation from acting outside its budget or business plans or exceeding its risk appetite. Why It Matters for Employers For employers, clarity around delegated authority helps to: Avoid financial risk – preventing unauthorised spend or commitments. Protect reputation – ensuring only appropriately senior people sign contracts, NDAs or external agreements. Increase efficiency – avoiding bottlenecks where senior leaders are dragged into small approvals unnecessarily. Empower staff – giving people confidence in the scope of their decision-making. Support compliance – ensuring regulatory, client and insurance obligations are met. Ultimately, a delegated authority policy protects both the business and its people, ensuring no individual is unfairly exposed and decisions are taken at the right level with the right oversight. What Happens Without It? Here’s what we see all too often when organisations don’t have a clear policy: Confusion and Delay: People waste time checking who has the right or responsibility to make a decision. Risk Exposure: Unauthorised commitments could expose the organisation to liability or financial loss. Morale Issues: Inconsistent delegation of authority – picking out people rather than roles, especially on a random basis – can create resentment. Compliance Breaches: without guidelines and controls, it is difficult to show that risk and compliance are managed effectively or spot when individuals are acting outside their powers. In contrast, organisations with well-defined frameworks experience smoother operations, clearer accountability and better risk management. Boardside’s View At Boardside, we see delegated authority policies as an underused but powerful governance tool. They are: A risk mitigator, reducing the likelihood of costly mistakes. A leadership enabler, freeing senior partners and directors to focus on strategy, not micromanagement. A cultural signal, demonstrating fairness, consistency, and accountability across the organisation. We also see that the best policies are simple, readily accessible, and regularly reviewed (and if necessary refreshed). A robust delegated authority policy should include: Defined levels of authority for Board, Executive and other management roles, and specialists (e.g.IT, customer-facing teams, procurement). Financial thresholds linked to role. Documented sign-off processes for contracts, client agreements, HR and vendor commitments. Clear role boundaries so staff understand both their powers and limits. Training and communication ensuring everyone knows where to find it and how to use it. Audit trails to evidence decision-making. Regular reviews to keep it relevant. We regularly work with boards to develop clear delegated authority policies as part of our corporate governance and strategy work. If you would like to discuss this in relation to your business please contact us .