Right to work checks have long been part of the recruitment process, with UK employers required to confirm that individuals have the legal right to work before they start employment and retain appropriate evidence. However, from October 2026, these responsibilities are expected to extend to a wider range of working arrangements, including casual workers, contractors, subcontractors and individuals providing services through online platforms.

The changes follow the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025. Although the detailed regulations are still awaited, the Home Office has published a draft Code of Practice expected to apply to new employment starting on or after 1 October 2026 and repeat checks carried out from that date.

What Is Expected to Change?

Currently, right to work checks are mainly associated with employees and workers engaged directly by a business. The proposed changes are expected to widen these responsibilities to include casual workers, temporary workers, self employed contractors, subcontractors and people providing services through online matching platforms.

This could particularly affect businesses operating in construction, hospitality, logistics, beauty, delivery services and warehousing, where flexible working arrangements are common. Employers may need to take greater responsibility for ensuring that individuals carrying out work for their business have the appropriate permission to work in the UK, even where they are not employed through traditional arrangements.

Why Employers Need to Review Their Processes

Many businesses already have established right to work procedures for permanent employees, but informal arrangements can fall outside these processes. Managers may arrange temporary cover, bring in casual workers or rely on subcontractors without considering whether additional checks are necessary.

These situations can create compliance risks, particularly where responsibility for completing checks is unclear. Failure to meet the relevant requirements can lead to civil penalties, reputational damage and, in more serious circumstances, criminal sanctions.

Subcontractors and Supply Chain Responsibilities

Businesses that rely on subcontractors should pay particular attention to the expected changes, as assuming that another company is entirely responsible for right to work checks may no longer be sufficient.

Employers should review their contracts with subcontractors and service providers to establish who is responsible for completing checks, whether evidence can be requested and what happens when a subcontractor sends a replacement worker. Having clear arrangements in place can help prevent important checks from being overlooked.

Digital Checks and Avoiding Discrimination

The Government is continuing to move towards digital verification, with the updated framework expected to place greater emphasis on certified digital verification services. Although these services may make checks more consistent and reduce administrative errors, employers will remain responsible for ensuring that the correct procedures are followed, appropriate evidence is retained and any necessary follow up checks are completed.

Employers must also ensure that right to work checks are carried out fairly and consistently, without making assumptions based on an individual's name, accent, nationality, ethnicity or appearance. Where someone experiences technical difficulties providing evidence, such as problems with a Home Office share code, they should be given a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issue.

What Should Employers Do Before October 2026?

Although the final regulations have not yet been confirmed, businesses can begin preparing by reviewing everyone who carries out work for them, including employees, casual workers, agency staff, contractors and subcontractors.

Existing recruitment procedures, onboarding documents and supplier contracts should be checked to identify any gaps in right to work responsibilities. Employers should also ensure that managers understand when checks may be required, how to carry them out fairly and what records need to be maintained.

Businesses may also wish to consider whether digital verification services would improve their processes, particularly where they regularly engage temporary workers or individuals through different working arrangements. Carrying out an internal review before the new requirements take effect could help identify potential problems and allow time for necessary changes.

Why Early Preparation Matters

For many businesses, right to work compliance issues arise from gaps in everyday procedures rather than deliberate failures. A manager may assume that a subcontractor has completed the necessary checks, a replacement worker may arrive without notice or a casual arrangement may become regular without the appropriate records being maintained.

The expected changes highlight the importance of treating right to work compliance as part of wider workforce management rather than simply a recruitment task. While employers will need to monitor the final regulations and guidance, reviewing existing arrangements now will help businesses prepare for the wider responsibilities expected from October 2026.

By ensuring that contracts, records and internal procedures are clear and consistent, employers can reduce the risk of compliance issues and approach the changes with greater confidence.

If you’re unsure how these changes might affect your business or would like a little guidance on getting prepared, our friendly team is here to help. Take a look at our Bespoke contracts of employment to see how we can support you.

Trade unions may not be something many SME employers have had to think about very often. For some businesses, they may still bring to mind heavily unionised industries, large public sector organisations or the industrial disputes of the 1970s and 1980s, rather than something particularly relevant to the day to day running of a smaller business.

That could be starting to change as a series of employment law reforms gives trade unions a more visible role within the workplace. One particularly important change is a new duty requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement informing them about their right to join a trade union. The latest government guidance says this requirement will take effect from 1 January 2027, with new workers receiving the information alongside their written statement of employment particulars. Existing workers will also need to receive or have access to the statement under arrangements set out by the Government.

Greater Awareness Could Change the Conversation

One of the most interesting questions is whether simply making employees more aware of their right to join a trade union will encourage more people to consider membership. Those who remember the 1980s will probably have a fairly clear idea of what a trade union is and what it does, regardless of whether they have ever personally belonged to one, but that may not necessarily be the case for everybody entering the workforce today.

Many younger employees may have spent their entire working lives in organisations where trade unions have barely been mentioned. They may never have dealt with a union representative, worked in a recognised workplace or seriously considered what joining a trade union could mean for them.

Once employers are required to provide information about the right to join a union, some workers are naturally going to become more aware of what membership could offer. They may begin thinking about who could support them if they experienced a workplace problem, whether a representative could assist them during a grievance or disciplinary process and what support might be available during a difficult conversation with their employer.

The Government says the standardised statement will include information about the functions of trade unions, relevant recognised unions or statutory access agreements where applicable, and statutory rights relating to union membership. That means workers will receive more information about trade unions as part of the employment relationship than many currently receive.

Whether that ultimately results in increased membership remains to be seen, but greater awareness could change the relationship between smaller employers, their workers and trade unions.

This Is Part of a Much Bigger Change in Employment Law

It is difficult to look at the trade union reforms in isolation because employment law is changing significantly across several areas. From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims increases from three months to six months where the relevant event occurs on or after that date.

At the same time, ACAS has been working on a substantial update to its Disciplinary and Grievance Code of Practice. Its consultation on the draft Code closed on 23 September 2026 and ACAS is now reviewing the responses, with the updated Code expected to take effect during 2027.

One of the clearest themes within the draft Code is a stronger emphasis on resolving workplace concerns early and informally wherever that is appropriate. It encourages employers and workers to discuss concerns before they develop into formal processes and recognises that trade union or other workplace representatives may sometimes help people understand the issue and identify a sensible way forward.

Taken together, these developments point towards a workplace environment where greater attention is being placed on dealing with concerns earlier and more constructively, before every disagreement develops into a formal grievance, disciplinary process or Employment Tribunal claim. Trade unions and workplace representatives could potentially play a greater role within those conversations.

When a Trade Union Representative Becomes Part of the Conversation

This is where some SME owners may find themselves dealing with a situation they have never encountered before. Imagine that a manager needs to speak to an employee about their performance and would ordinarily arrange an informal conversation to discuss what has been happening and what needs to improve.

If the employee asks for a trade union representative to be involved, the meeting can suddenly feel quite different to an employer who has never dealt with a representative before. The employee may have somebody alongside them who understands workplace procedures and is specifically there to provide support, while the business owner may be trying to understand what the representative can do, what should be agreed and whether the nature of the meeting has changed.

The legal position depends on the type of meeting taking place. Workers have a statutory right to be accompanied at formal disciplinary and grievance meetings, with a companion potentially being a fellow worker, trade union representative or trade union official. There is not currently a general statutory right to accompaniment during an informal conversation about conduct or performance.

However, the draft ACAS Code goes further by saying that where somebody asks to be accompanied during a meeting where the statutory right does not apply, it is good practice for the employer to consider whether allowing accompaniment could help resolve the issue. This does not automatically mean the request must be accepted in every informal situation, but it does make confident and informed management increasingly important.

This sits alongside wider trade union reforms, including changes relating to workplace access, union recognition and protections for trade union representatives. For smaller employers that have previously had very little contact with trade unions, these developments could make unions a much more visible part of working life.

Employers Need to Feel Confident Too

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an employee seeking support from a trade union, but employers also need to understand the process and feel confident about how they handle the situation. This is particularly important within smaller businesses where the director, owner or line manager may normally deal with employee matters themselves without an internal HR department.

HR support can help an employer prepare properly for meetings, understand what process applies, communicate appropriately with a trade union representative and keep discussions focused on reaching a sensible outcome. Depending on the circumstances, that support might involve helping a director prepare for a meeting, providing guidance during the process, chairing a formal meeting or acting as a point of contact between the business and a trade union.

Often, however, one of the most valuable things HR can provide is reassurance that the presence of a trade union representative does not need to turn an ordinary workplace issue into a confrontation. The objective remains much the same whether a union is involved or not, which is to understand what has happened, follow an appropriate and fair process, communicate clearly with everyone involved and, wherever possible, resolve the problem before it develops into something considerably more difficult.

What Should SME Employers Do Now?

Nobody can say with certainty whether these changes will result in a significant increase in trade union membership, and greater awareness of the right to join a union does not necessarily mean workers will choose to become members. What will change is the amount of information employees receive about trade unions and their workplace rights.

For SME employers that have never had meaningful involvement with a trade union, this makes it sensible to understand how union representatives may become involved in workplace matters and how managers should respond. Employers should also be aware of the wider changes to union access and representation so that the first time they think seriously about these issues is not when a representative is already involved in a difficult employee situation.

The important thing is not to view greater trade union involvement as something that automatically creates conflict. A representative may sometimes help an employee understand a process, communicate their concerns more clearly and participate constructively in finding a resolution. Equally, the employer needs to understand its own responsibilities and be confident that the process remains fair, proportionate and focused on the actual workplace issue.

As employment law continues to change, good workplace relationships and confident management are likely to become increasingly important. Whether trade union membership rises significantly or not, more employers may find themselves having conversations involving union membership, representation and workplace rights that they have never previously needed to consider.

For smaller businesses in particular, preparing for that possibility now is considerably easier than trying to understand the rules for the first time during an already difficult employee situation.

As trade unions become a more visible part of workplace conversations, having clear procedures and the confidence to manage disciplinary and grievance matters fairly will become increasingly important, find out how EC Human Resources can support your business with Disciplinary and Grievance support.

From 1 October 2026, employees will have longer to bring a number of claims before an Employment Tribunal, with many of the current three month time limits increasing to six months. For employers, this is an important change because workplace disputes may remain capable of becoming Tribunal claims for considerably longer than they do under the current rules.

The change certainly does not mean that every workplace disagreement will result in legal proceedings, but it does mean employers may need to retain evidence, manage unresolved concerns and consider potential legal risks over a longer period. A matter that appears to have gone quiet after a few months may still develop into an Acas early conciliation notification or Tribunal claim later.

Contractual Claims Will Have a Longer Time Limit in England and Wales

One of the changes taking effect on 1 October 2026 comes through the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026. This extends the time limit for bringing certain Employment Tribunal claims relating to an employee's contract of employment from three months to six months.

These claims can include wrongful dismissal and disputes concerning payments or other sums that an employee believes are due under their employment contract. Wrongful dismissal should not be confused with unfair dismissal because the two claims deal with different issues. Wrongful dismissal will usually concern whether an employer breached the employment contract when ending somebody's employment, such as by failing to provide the contractual notice or notice pay they were entitled to receive.

From October, an individual in England or Wales who believes their employment contract has been breached may therefore have up to six months to present the relevant claim, subject to the applicable rules and the effect of the Acas early conciliation process.

The Changes Extend Beyond Contractual Disputes

Contractual claims are only part of the picture because separate regulations extend the time limits for several other types of Employment Tribunal complaint from three months to six months. These include certain claims involving part time workers, fixed term employees, collective redundancy consultation, zero hours contract exclusivity clauses, blacklisting and particular NHS recruitment and whistleblowing protections.

Unlike the contractual claims Order, these regulations apply across England, Scotland and Wales. The broader reforms introduced through the Employment Rights Act 2025 will also increase the primary time limit for many other Employment Tribunal claims from three months to six months, making the longer claims period increasingly important across employment law.

For employers, the practical message is that the familiar three month period can no longer be treated as the point at which many potential employment disputes have necessarily passed.

The Date of the Workplace Issue Will Matter

The move to six months does not mean that every claim presented after 1 October 2026 will automatically benefit from the longer period. The new time limits will generally apply where the relevant act, omission, treatment or infringement takes place on or after 1 October 2026, while an event that occurred before that date will normally remain subject to the previous three month limit.

This distinction will be particularly important during the transitional period because employers could be dealing with potential claims under different time limits at the same time. The date on which a claim is presented will not necessarily determine which deadline applies, so employers should avoid assuming that every claim made after October automatically receives six months.

The position can become more complicated where a complaint concerns a continuing course of conduct or a series of connected events rather than one clearly identifiable incident. In those circumstances, specialist advice may be needed to establish which rules and time limits apply.

Employers Operating in Scotland Need to Be Particularly Careful

There is also an important geographical distinction within the changes because the Order extending the time limit for contractual Employment Tribunal claims applies only to England and Wales.

Employment Tribunals can hear certain contractual claims in Scotland, but the power to amend the relevant Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers. A separate Scottish Order will therefore be required to introduce an equivalent six month period for those contractual claims.

The wider regulations covering matters such as fixed term workers, part time workers, collective consultation and zero hours exclusivity clauses do apply across England, Scotland and Wales from 1 October 2026. Businesses operating across different parts of Great Britain should therefore be careful not to assume that every aspect of the reforms takes effect in exactly the same way or at exactly the same time.

Acas Early Conciliation Will Still Affect the Deadline

The longer claims period does not remove the requirement to notify Acas before most Employment Tribunal proceedings can begin. Acas early conciliation remains an important part of the process and can affect how the final deadline for presenting a claim is calculated.

The early conciliation process can pause the normal Tribunal time limit while conciliation is taking place, which means calculating the actual deadline can be more complicated than simply counting six months from the date of the incident. Employers should therefore be cautious about calculating deadlines themselves where there is uncertainty about whether a claim remains in time.

The existing rules that allow Employment Tribunals to consider whether certain claims presented outside the usual deadline should still be accepted will also continue to apply, so the six month period should not necessarily be treated as an absolute cut off in every situation.

Why the Longer Claims Window Matters for Employers

Under the current three month time limit, employers often find out relatively quickly whether a former employee or worker intends to pursue a workplace dispute formally. Once the longer time limits take effect, that period of uncertainty will increase considerably.

An employee who initially decides not to take further action will have more time to obtain advice, collect information, attempt to resolve the issue internally or simply reconsider their position. Employers could therefore receive Acas early conciliation notifications or Tribunal claims concerning matters that happened several months earlier.

The difficulty is that workplace evidence does not always become easier to find with time. Managers may have forgotten important details, employees who witnessed events may have moved to another organisation and relevant emails, messages, meeting notes or other documents may be more difficult to locate. What appeared obvious to everybody involved at the time can become much harder to establish several months later.

This is why good record keeping will become even more important once the longer time limits take effect.

Employers Should Review Their Records Before October

Businesses should use the period before October to consider how workplace concerns, grievances, disciplinary matters, dismissals and contractual disputes are currently recorded. Managers should understand the importance of keeping clear and factual notes of significant conversations and decisions rather than relying on memory if an issue resurfaces months later.

The reasons behind disciplinary action, changes to employment terms and decisions to dismiss should also be properly documented when those decisions are made. Trying to reconstruct the reasoning several months later can be extremely difficult, particularly if the manager responsible has moved role or left the organisation.

Document retention arrangements should be reviewed at the same time. Evidence relating to an employment decision should not automatically be deleted simply because three months have passed without hearing anything further from the individual concerned. Employers may need to reconsider how long they retain investigation notes, meeting records, correspondence, payroll information and documents supporting disciplinary or dismissal decisions.

This does not mean businesses should retain every document indefinitely, and appropriate data protection requirements will still need to be considered. It does mean retention practices should reflect the fact that relevant Employment Tribunal proceedings may now begin considerably later than employers have previously been accustomed to.

More Time Does Not Mean Employers Should Wait to Resolve Problems

Although extending Tribunal time limits increases the period during which an employee may bring a claim, the additional time can also create a greater opportunity for workplace disagreements to be resolved before formal proceedings become necessary.

Addressing concerns early, following fair procedures and communicating clearly with employees can help prevent misunderstandings from developing into larger disputes. Employers should therefore avoid seeing the longer claims window as a reason to delay dealing with workplace problems, because prompt action supported by good documentation will remain one of the most effective ways of protecting both the organisation and its employees.

The key date for employers is 1 October 2026, and preparation should focus on making sure managers understand that potential claims may remain live for longer than they have previously expected. Employment records should be complete, important decisions should be properly documented and retention practices should reflect the longer period during which a workplace issue could return as an Acas notification or Employment Tribunal claim.

Ultimately, the change is not simply about giving employees another three months to bring certain claims. For employers, it changes how long workplace decisions may need to be explained, evidenced and defended, which makes clear processes and reliable records more important than ever.

EC Human Resources supports employers with grievances, disciplinary matters, dismissals, contractual concerns and Employment Tribunal risk, helping businesses follow fair processes, maintain appropriate records and deal with workplace problems effectively before they develop into formal claims, find out more about our Disciplinary and Grievance support

Allowing employees to bank additional hours or take time off in lieu can seem like a straightforward way to give both the business and its employees greater flexibility around overtime. An employee works additional hours when the business needs them and then takes the equivalent time away from work at a later date, rather than receiving additional overtime pay.

Although the arrangement may appear fair when viewed across several weeks or months, National Minimum Wage rules can make the position considerably more complicated. The difficulty arises because compliance is generally assessed within individual pay reference periods, rather than by looking at whether the employee eventually receives equivalent paid time away from work. An employee who works additional hours without receiving additional pay during one period could therefore create a National Minimum Wage issue even if they later take those hours back as paid leave.

Understanding this distinction is particularly important for employers that regularly use banked hours or TOIL, especially where employees are paid at or only slightly above the applicable National Minimum Wage rate.

Why the Pay Reference Period Matters

National Minimum Wage compliance is generally assessed by reference to a worker's pay reference period. This will usually correspond with how frequently the individual is paid, such as weekly or monthly, and a pay reference period cannot be longer than one calendar month.

Within the relevant period, the employer needs to establish the pay that counts for National Minimum Wage purposes and compare it with the hours that must be treated as worked. When the relevant pay is divided by those hours, the resulting hourly rate must be at least the National Minimum Wage rate that applies to that worker.

This is where banked hours can create a problem. An arrangement may appear perfectly reasonable when the employer looks at the employee's hours and pay across several months, but National Minimum Wage compliance cannot necessarily be averaged across that entire period. If additional working time falls within one pay reference period without a corresponding increase in the pay that counts for minimum wage purposes, the employee's effective hourly rate for that period could fall below the statutory minimum.

Why Taking TOIL Later Does Not Necessarily Solve the Problem

Banked hours usually arise when an employee works additional time but records those hours to take as paid time away from work later instead of receiving overtime pay. From an operational perspective, the additional work and later time away may appear to balance each other, but National Minimum Wage legislation does not simply treat TOIL as a separate form of payment for the additional hours.

HMRC guidance explains that when TOIL is eventually taken, it is essentially time during which the employee is not working. The later period of paid absence does not necessarily cancel out additional working hours that had to be counted during an earlier pay reference period.

Whether a particular arrangement actually results in an underpayment will depend on several factors, including the worker's contractual arrangements, the type of work they perform for National Minimum Wage purposes, the number of hours involved and the amount of pay they receive. This means employers should not assume that having a TOIL system automatically deals with the minimum wage implications of additional working time.

The Risk Can Be Particularly Clear for Hourly Paid Workers

For employees who are paid according to the number of hours they work, the potential problem can be relatively easy to see. If an hourly paid employee works additional hours but receives no additional pay because those hours have been banked, the extra working time still needs to be considered when checking National Minimum Wage compliance for the relevant pay reference period.

Consider an employee who normally works 35 hours each week and receives an hourly rate only slightly above the applicable minimum wage. If that employee works several additional hours during a particularly busy week but receives exactly the same pay because the extra hours have been added to a TOIL balance, those additional hours can reduce their average hourly rate for that period.

If the resulting rate falls below the statutory minimum, the employer may have underpaid National Minimum Wage even though the employee has been promised paid time away from work several weeks later. Allowing the employee to take that time later does not automatically correct an underpayment that has already arisen within the earlier pay reference period.

The closer an employee's normal hourly rate is to National Minimum Wage, the less room there is for additional unpaid working time before a compliance problem potentially arises.

Salaried Employees Require a Different Calculation

The position can become more complicated where employees receive an annual salary rather than straightforward hourly pay. A salaried hours worker is generally paid an annual salary in return for a set number of basic annual hours, and under the relevant National Minimum Wage rules those basic hours are normally treated as being worked evenly across the worker's pay reference periods.

That does not mean employers can ignore the employee's actual working time. Employers still need appropriate records and should monitor additional hours because unpaid working time can become important when determining whether the employee has exceeded their basic annual hours during the relevant calculation year.

Once the worker's total relevant hours exceed their contracted basic annual hours, additional National Minimum Wage calculations may be required. Regular early starts, late finishes, additional work outside normal hours and other unpaid working time can therefore become significant, particularly where the employee's salary does not leave a substantial margin above the statutory minimum.

Employers should also be careful about assuming that somebody automatically falls within the salaried hours rules simply because their contract describes them as salaried. The working arrangement must genuinely satisfy the legal requirements for salaried hours work, and the wording used within the employment contract does not determine the position by itself.

A salary that initially appears comfortably above National Minimum Wage can therefore require much closer examination once the employee's contractual hours, actual working time and any additional unpaid hours are taken into account.

TOIL Can Still Be a Useful Arrangement When It Is Managed Properly

There is nothing inherently unlawful about allowing employees to take time off in lieu, and a properly managed TOIL arrangement can provide useful flexibility for both the employer and the employee. The compliance risk arises when the way additional hours are worked and recorded causes the worker's pay to fall below National Minimum Wage for the hours that need to be included in the relevant calculation.

This becomes particularly important where employees receive the statutory minimum or only a relatively small amount above it. Every additional unpaid hour reduces the margin between the employee's effective hourly rate and the minimum they are legally entitled to receive, which means a TOIL arrangement that creates little concern for a higher paid employee could produce a very different result for somebody whose pay sits close to the statutory threshold.

The important issue is therefore not simply whether TOIL is permitted, but whether the business understands how the arrangement interacts with pay, working time and the employee's particular National Minimum Wage category.

Employers Need to Know What Hours Are Actually Being Worked

Businesses that use banked hours or TOIL should make sure the arrangements are clearly documented and that managers understand when employees can work additional hours and how those hours should be recorded. Relying solely on contracted hours or planned rotas may not provide an accurate picture if employees regularly start early, finish late or complete additional work that is subsequently added to a TOIL balance.

Payroll and HR records should allow the employer to compare actual working time with the pay counted for National Minimum Wage purposes within the correct pay reference periods. Particular attention should be given to employees whose pay sits close to the statutory minimum because even a relatively small amount of additional unpaid working time could potentially result in an underpayment.

Employers should also consider whether sensible controls are needed around how many hours an employee can bank, how quickly those hours should be taken as TOIL and whether additional working time requires approval in advance. These controls can help prevent large balances from accumulating while also giving managers better visibility of the hours people are actually working.

Simply stating within an employment contract that overtime will be unpaid does not remove the employer's obligation to ensure that the worker receives at least National Minimum Wage for the relevant hours.

Banked Hours Are Only One Part of the Minimum Wage Calculation

TOIL should not be considered in isolation because working additional hours is only one of the factors that can affect National Minimum Wage compliance. Certain deductions from wages, payments connected with uniforms or equipment, salary sacrifice arrangements and other employment related costs can also reduce the amount of pay that counts for minimum wage purposes.

An employee may therefore appear to be comfortably above National Minimum Wage when the employer looks only at their headline salary or standard hourly rate, while the position becomes considerably tighter once actual working hours and relevant deductions are taken into account.

This is another reason why employers should avoid relying on broad assumptions about who is unlikely to create a minimum wage risk. The calculation needs to reflect the individual's actual working and pay arrangements rather than simply the figure written in their employment contract.

Regular Review Is More Effective Than Discovering a Problem Later

TOIL arrangements should not be introduced and then left to operate without oversight. Employers should regularly compare the pay that counts for National Minimum Wage purposes with the hours that need to be included in the calculation, particularly where workloads fluctuate or employees regularly work beyond their contracted hours.

Regular monitoring becomes even more important where banked hours are building up over time because this can indicate that employees are consistently working more than their normal hours. Keeping accurate records allows the employer to identify potential problems before they develop into a pattern of underpayment.

National Minimum Wage calculations can be technical, particularly when salaried hours workers are involved, and the correct treatment will depend on the circumstances of the individual arrangement. Where there is uncertainty, employers should review the relevant employment contracts, actual working time records and payroll information rather than assuming that a TOIL balance means the additional hours have already been dealt with.

The HMRC National Minimum Wage Manual and the Government's minimum wage calculation guidance remain important detailed reference points for employers assessing their arrangements. Ultimately, the key issue is not whether banked hours or TOIL are being used, but whether the employee continues to receive at least the National Minimum Wage required for the hours that count within each relevant period.

If you need help reviewing your National Minimum Wage arrangements, TOIL policies or employment contracts, visit EC Human Resources' National Minimum Wage Compliance service to find out how we can help your business stay compliant.

Laptops, iPads, phones and AI tools have become an ordinary part of working life, helping employees work faster, stay connected, access information, respond to clients and continue working when they are away from the office. Technology is now so embedded within everyday work that many of the habits surrounding it barely receive a second thought.

An employee might check work emails on their personal phone, while a manager downloads a document to an iPad before a meeting or somebody uses an AI tool to improve a customer response or summarise notes. A laptop might go home overnight because an employee wants to continue working the following morning. Most of these activities are practical and useful, but every one of them also involves decisions about where business information is stored, who can access it and how securely it is being handled.

This is why workplace technology can no longer be treated purely as an IT responsibility. Technical security remains essential because systems need appropriate protection, devices need to be secure and access needs to be controlled, but the way technology is actually used by employees is equally important. Questions around confidentiality, behaviour, expectations, trust, training and accountability sit firmly within the employment relationship, which means HR has an important role to play alongside IT.

Technology Has Become Part of the Employment Relationship

Workplace technology now affects almost every stage of employment, from how people communicate and perform their roles to how they are managed and how information is stored. When an employee uses a laptop, tablet, phone or AI tool for work, they could be handling client information, employee records, employment contracts, payroll information, internal emails, sickness absence details, disciplinary documents or commercially sensitive business information.

If that information is handled incorrectly, the consequences can extend well beyond an inconvenient IT problem. A business could face data protection concerns, confidentiality breaches, cyber security incidents, disciplinary matters and damage to the trust it has built with employees or clients.

Importantly, these risks do not always begin with a sophisticated cyber attack. Many problems develop through ordinary workplace habits that seem harmless at the time. An employee might share a password because it is quicker, forward a document to their personal email address so they can work from home or leave a phone containing work emails unlocked. A former employee might retain access to a shared folder after leaving, while somebody else might copy confidential information into an AI tool without considering where that information could subsequently go.

Situations like these are not unusual because people often take shortcuts when they are busy, under pressure or unsure about the rules. This is where HR becomes particularly important, because employment contracts, workplace policies, induction, training, manager guidance and disciplinary procedures all influence how employees use technology in practice.

AI Has Made the Risks More Immediate

Artificial intelligence has changed the workplace technology conversation because powerful tools are now available to almost everybody. Employees can use AI to draft emails, prepare reports, summarise meetings, create content, generate ideas, analyse feedback and complete routine tasks more quickly. Used appropriately, these tools can save time, improve consistency and provide useful support to employees managing demanding workloads.

The benefits, however, sit alongside several risks that employers cannot afford to overlook. Confidentiality is one of the most significant because employees may be tempted to copy personal data, client information, medical details, grievance notes, disciplinary records, payroll information or commercially sensitive documents into an AI tool without fully understanding how that information will be processed.

Accuracy creates another concern because AI generated material can sound convincing even when the information it contains is incorrect. That becomes particularly important when employees use these tools to produce advice, letters, HR documents, customer responses or management communications that other people may assume have been properly checked.

Employers also need to think carefully about fairness when AI is used in recruitment, performance management, absence management or another process that could affect somebody's employment. Human judgement should not simply be replaced by technology without the employer understanding how the tool is influencing the decision and who remains responsible for the outcome.

The practical issue is therefore not whether AI should automatically be regarded as good or bad, but whether employees understand how they are permitted to use it. If nobody has explained which tools are approved, what information must never be entered, when an output requires human checking and who remains responsible for the final decision, the business is effectively relying on individual judgement. Some employees may naturally be cautious, while others may not realise that their apparently harmless use of AI has created a risk.

Flexible Working Has Blurred the Boundary Between Personal and Business Technology

Personal devices create similar challenges because convenience can quickly overtake control. Many employees now check work emails on their own phones, access documents from home, discuss work through messaging applications or log into company systems using personal laptops and tablets.

For smaller businesses, these arrangements can be particularly attractive because they allow employees to work flexibly and respond quickly without requiring the organisation to provide every piece of equipment. The difficulty is that once company information is stored or accessed through a personal device, the boundaries between the employee's information and the employer's information can become much less clear.

Employers need to understand how work information on a personal phone is protected, how access will be removed when somebody leaves and what should happen if a device is lost or stolen. They also need to consider whether family members could see business information when devices are shared and whether locally saved documents can be recovered or deleted when necessary.

The employee's privacy is equally important. Where personal devices are permitted for work, employees should understand what information the employer can and cannot access, whether monitoring takes place and how business data stored on the device will be managed. Without clear guidance, both parties can make unsafe assumptions, with the employer believing its information is protected while the employee assumes their personal device sits completely outside the organisation's control.

Monitoring Needs to Be Managed as Carefully as the Technology Itself

Technology has also made employee monitoring significantly easier, giving employers the potential ability to see logins, emails, website activity, locations, system usage, call records and productivity information. There are circumstances where monitoring can have a legitimate purpose, particularly where an organisation needs to protect confidential information, investigate misconduct, manage performance or meet regulatory obligations.

The ability to collect information does not, however, mean that every form of monitoring should automatically be used. From an HR perspective, transparency and proportionality are particularly important because employees should understand what monitoring takes place, why the organisation considers it necessary, how the information may be used and who will have access to it.

Monitoring that employees do not expect can quickly undermine trust, while excessive monitoring can affect morale and create a culture where people feel watched rather than properly managed. It may also create data protection concerns where the employer cannot adequately justify the information it is collecting or explain how that information is being used.

Technology should therefore support good management rather than become a replacement for it. Employers need to use monitoring carefully and transparently, with a clear reason for collecting information and an understanding of how the results will be handled.

When Technology Problems Become Employee Conduct Problems

There will inevitably be occasions when the misuse of workplace technology becomes a conduct or disciplinary issue. An employee might share login details, ignore password requirements, install unauthorised software, send confidential documents to a personal account, use an AI tool that has not been approved or repeatedly leave company devices unsecured.

Depending on the circumstances, behaviour of this kind may need to be addressed formally, but employers should be cautious about moving immediately towards disciplinary action without first considering what the employee had actually been told. The business should establish whether there was an appropriate policy, whether training had been provided, whether the relevant rule had been clearly communicated and whether managers had applied the same expectations consistently across the workforce.

Previous practice matters as well. If similar behaviour has routinely been tolerated, an employer may find it more difficult to take a significantly different approach without first making expectations clear. Where the business has never properly explained the rules, it may still need to address the immediate incident, but it should also recognise that its own policies, communication or training may need improvement.

A fair process depends on employees understanding what is expected of them. People cannot reasonably be held accountable for failing to follow a workplace standard that has never been properly communicated.

Clear Rules Need to Reflect How People Actually Work

The solution is not to overwhelm employees with lengthy technical policies that are difficult to understand and rarely read. Employers need practical guidance that reflects how technology is genuinely being used within the organisation and gives employees clear boundaries they can apply during everyday work.

An AI, technology and cyber security policy should explain how company devices may be used, whether employees are permitted to use personal devices for work, how passwords and system access should be managed and what employees must do if a device is lost or stolen. It should also explain how confidential information needs to be protected and what employees should do if they believe information may have been compromised.

AI should form a clear part of that guidance rather than being left to individual interpretation. Employees need to know whether AI tools are permitted, which tools have been approved by the organisation, what information must never be entered and when human checking is required. Employers should also make their position clear where AI is being considered for work involving employees, clients or decisions that could affect other people.

Policies alone are unlikely to be enough, which is why induction and regular training are equally important. Cyber security and AI use should not appear once within an employee handbook and then disappear from workplace conversations, particularly because both technology and employee working habits continue to change quickly.

Managers need guidance as much as employees because they are often the people who unintentionally allow informal shortcuts to become normal practice. A manager who accepts shared passwords, encourages personal WhatsApp groups, permits unauthorised software or allows sensitive information to be entered into AI tools may create significant risk without appreciating the consequences.

HR and IT Need to Manage the Risk Together

Cyber security is strongest when HR and IT work together rather than treating technology and people as completely separate responsibilities. IT teams can establish technical protections and access controls, while HR can make sure expectations are communicated clearly, applied fairly and managed consistently across the employment relationship.

That partnership should continue throughout every stage of employment. Recruitment processes need to consider how applicant information is handled, while onboarding should ensure that new employees understand the rules surrounding systems, devices, confidential information and acceptable technology use. During employment, managers need to know how concerns should be handled, and when somebody leaves the organisation, access to systems and information needs to be removed promptly.

A weak leaver process demonstrates why the distinction between HR and IT responsibilities is often artificial. If somebody leaves the organisation but continues to have access to emails, files, shared folders or business systems, the resulting risk may involve technology, but the failure is also connected to the organisation's HR process.

The same principle applies to remote working, employee monitoring, performance management, disciplinary procedures and AI use. Technology may provide the systems behind these activities, but employees and managers are the people making decisions about how those systems are used.

Technology Should Make Work Easier Without Creating Avoidable Risk

AI and workplace technology are not going away, nor should employers necessarily want them to. Used properly, technology can save time, improve communication, support flexible working and help businesses operate more effectively, while AI can provide employees with useful support across a growing range of everyday tasks.

Employers nevertheless need to be realistic about the risks that come with those benefits. Businesses do not need to ban every new tool or introduce rules that make ordinary work unnecessarily difficult, but they do need clear boundaries, sensible training and consistent follow through when expectations are not met.

Employees should understand which tools and devices they are permitted to use, what information they need to protect and what they should do when something goes wrong. Managers should know what they have authority to approve and when specialist advice is needed, while the organisation itself should have a clear understanding of where its information is stored, who has access to it and what protections are in place.

Technology can make work easier and AI can make many tasks faster, but both can create unnecessary problems when the people using them have not been given clear expectations. That is why AI, workplace devices and cyber security now need to form part of the wider HR conversation rather than being treated as matters that can simply be left with IT.

EC Human Resources can help businesses put clear, practical workplace policies in place that reflect how employees actually work. Find out more about our HR Policies and Procedures service and see how we can help you create policies that protect your business and give employees clear expectations.