July 9, 2026
Welcome to Worked Up – your one-stop shop for the latest updates in employment and immigration law.
In this edition, we explore no less than six topics including: (i) the Law Society’s response to AI use in legal proceedings and what it might mean for AI-generated grievances and tribunal claims; (ii) the latest Home Office statistics signalling a more selective immigration system and what this means for workforce strategy; (iii) the government’s consultation on zero-hours contract reform and how it could affect flexible staffing models across the creative industries, (iv) the evolving right to work compliance landscape and its implications for the entertainment industry; (v) the EHRC’s new draft Services Code of Practice and the practical challenges of balancing gender-critical beliefs with gender reassignment protections in the workplace; and (vi) a recent EAT case involving the BBC that offers important lessons on disability, late shifts, and constructive knowledge.
If you would like to discuss any of the below updates, please do get in touch. Alternatively, if you would like to receive these updates directly to your inbox, please subscribe here.
This month's headlines:
Horizon scanning
If you want to stay ahead of the curve and keep updated on the key employment and immigration changes (including proposed legislation, consultations and case law) on the horizon over the next 24 months, check out our “What’s on the horizon” tracker.
Law Society chimes in on use of AI in legal proceedings
We know that many of you are now (unfortunately!) getting used to wading through AI generated grievances, DSARs and tribunal claims. The Law Society’s recent response to the Civil Justice Council’s consultation on AI use in preparing court documents may therefore be of interest. Essentially, it would seem that new procedural guidance may be incoming in relation to the preparation of documents such as statements of case, skeleton arguments, witness statements, expert reports and disclosure.
In short, the Law Society is calling for urgent new guidance from the SRA and the courts and tribunals on AI use in court documents, alongside a broader review of AI across the justice system. Rather than rushing to amend the Civil Procedure Rules, it would favour an incremental approach, i.e. getting the guidance and training frameworks in place first, then following up with rule changes. If the Law Society’s recommendations are adopted, legal representatives can expect clearer professional conduct guidance, organisational support requirements, and new (but pragmatic) obligations to disclose AI use or declare non-use in certain circumstances.
While the consultation focused on legal representatives, the potential rules that may flow from this could potentially extend to all court users, including litigants in person. This might mean that transparency obligations around AI use could be introduced to anyone filing documents with an employment tribunal.
Changes in this area arguably can’t come soon enough for employers, as the difficulties dealing with AI generated complaints is already playing out in workplaces and tribunals in a considerable way.
On the face of it, the onset of AI generated grievances and claims could be said to rebalance the scales in a system that many feel is skewed in favour of represented and well-funded employers. Everyone can now immediately access their own ‘AI lawyer’ (there’s even a couple of so called ‘AI law firms’ around now too) and the results can look impressively polished, well-structured, and legally fluent on the surface. However, the underlying substance of what is claimed is often weak, over-egged, excessively long, misunderstands the law or has no correlation with the actual facts.
Dealing with these cases is now a massive challenge for HR teams. A grievance must be taken seriously and invariably requires a thorough investigation. Doing this properly when it’s hard to pin down what the actual complaint is can be very difficult. A good strategy is therefore essential to manage matters efficiently and see through the veneer.
We’ve been helping clients with lots of these sorts of cases recently and are developing an effective new methodology for dealing with AI generated complaints and claims. We’re also encouraging reviews of internal processes and policies to tackle inappropriate AI usage internally. If you’re facing something that rings true with any of the above, do let us know if you’d like to chat through.
Higher bars and smaller pools: time to rethink your workforce strategy
The Home Office’s latest Accredited Official Statistics, published on 21 May 2026, confirm what many employers in the creative and digital sectors have been feeling on the ground: the UK immigration system is becoming structurally more selective. Work route visas have seen the steepest decline of any major immigration category, falling 17% year-on-year and 59% from the 2023 peak. Behind those headline figures lies a clear policy direction – higher salary thresholds, tighter skills requirements, and more exacting sponsor compliance obligations – all of which demand a more considered response from employers.
Irrespective of the policy changes, the system continues to offer real opportunities for employers who engage with it strategically. And for those in high-skill, globally competitive sectors, the routes remain open to those who plan ahead. Visa extensions remain broadly stable, which suggests that employers are retaining their existing sponsored workers effectively.
Where employers will need to adapt, however, is in attracting new talent from overseas. Employers who have historically relied on overseas recruitment to fill specialist or niche roles will need to plan earlier, budget for higher salary offers, and ensure their internal processes are robust enough to withstand greater Home Office scrutiny.
The more important takeaway though is a strategic one. The direction of travel seems clear: the government intends to reduce volumes across all visa categories while raising the bar on skills and pay. Unless a new Burnham government takes a different approach, this is likely to reflect a structural shift in how the immigration system operates for years to come. Whilst it’s possible that ‘Andy’ and his cabinet may present a slightly more progressive outlook, there are no signs yet of any wholesale change in the immigration agenda. Employers who recognise this early will be well positioned to navigate the system more effectively.
In practical terms, that means three things:
- Reviewing your sponsor licence compliance now, before the Home Office does! This includes staying on top of your record-keeping obligations, reporting duties and right-to-work checks.
- Ensuring your overseas recruitment strategy is aligned with the new thresholds so you can continue to access the global talent that gives your business a competitive edge.
- Building longer-term workforce strategies that account for a more selective system, whether through domestic talent pipelines, workforce development initiatives, or more targeted use of the immigration routes that remain available.
With the right preparation, the immigration system remains a powerful tool for building the workforce your business needs. We’re here to help you make the most of it.
Are you ready for the zero-hours shakeup?
The government launched its much-anticipated consultation on zero-hours and low-hours contract reform on 2 June 2026. If your workforce relies on flexible, shift-based, or project-driven staffing, it’s one to pay close attention to.
Three new rights are heading for implementation in 2027. First, employers will have to offer qualifying workers a contract reflecting the hours they regularly work over a reference period, which is likely to be 12 weeks. Workers can decline, but the offer must be made. Second, a statutory minimum notice period for shifts is coming, with options ranging from one to four weeks, so no more last-minute call-ups without consequence. Third, if you cancel, curtail, or move a shift at short notice, you’ll owe workers compensation, potentially between 10% and 80% of expected earnings. The consultation closes later in the summer and draft regulations will follow, with full implementation expected next year.
These reforms are unlikely to hit just hospitality and retail. They could realistically impact any workplace where inconsistent hours are worked.
From the perspective of the key sectors Wiggin services (film and TV, video games, betting and gaming, sports and digital technology businesses), there could genuinely be some risk cases. For example, in film and TV, think daily hires, supporting artists, and crew engaged on short-term or per-day contracts. In sports and live events, the many stewards, hospitality staff, and security personnel working irregular match-day or event-driven shifts could well have rights under the new rules. In terms of games companies, do we need to be considering the implications for QA testers and other temporary staff brought on during crunch periods or pre-launch sprints? As for betting and gaming operators, what about customer-facing staff whose hours flex around major sporting events, race meetings, or seasonal peaks?
The reality is that these reforms will land differently depending on your sector, your staffing model, and how deeply embedded flexible arrangements are in your day-to-day operations. Our advice? Don’t wait for the final regulations. The consultation provides a sign of where this is heading and there is time to get ahead of this now. Auditing your workforce and identifying potential zero-hours or low-hours working arrangements would be a good place to start. Consider whether you can accurately track working patterns, because should/when the rules kick in, you’ll need accurate data to calculate guaranteed hours offers. Finally, review your shift-scheduling processes. If last-minute rostering is the norm, build in longer lead times and formalise cancellation procedures.
Employers who prepare now will be well placed when the new rules come into place. Non-compliance carries real risks including potential tribunal claims and Fair Work Agency enforcement actions, with possible penalties of up to £5,000 per worker.
Get in touch if you’d like to discuss how these reforms might apply to you.
Right to Work changes and potential implications for the entertainment industry
The Home Office has had a difficult Spring when it comes to sponsor guidance. Updates in March and April 2026 initially looked like they were extending right to work duties to all workers “engaged” by a sponsor – a potentially seismic shift. That was partially walked back from on 20 May 2026, with a clarification that the wider obligations only apply to those “directly engaged.” The correction is welcome, and the dust is now settling, but it’s a clear signal that employers need to stay ahead of the curve rather than react after the fact.
The more significant development lies ahead. By autumn 2026, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 is expected to expand the scope of right to work compliance to cover casual and zero-hours workers. The fines for non-compliance are substantial (up to £60,000 per illegal worker), but the businesses that act now will be well-placed to turn compliance into a competitive advantage.
For creative and entertainment industries, this potentially has more significance. The industry is built on freelancers, short-term engagements, day players, and crew brought on at pace, often through a web of production companies, agencies, and personal service companies. That model isn’t going to change. But the regulatory framework around it is evolving, and productions that build smart, scalable compliance processes now will find themselves ahead of competitors still scrambling when the rules take effect. Having streamlined systems in place isn’t just about avoiding risk; it’s about operating with confidence.
The good news is that the steps to get there are straightforward, and getting started now means you’ll be well ahead of the October timeline. We recommend mapping out every category of worker providing services to your productions – so not just employees, but freelancers, dailies, agency crew, and everyone in between. Consider auditing your current checking processes and identify where improvements can be made. Review your contractual arrangements with agencies to clarify responsibility for right to work checks and strengthen those provisions where needed. And invest in record-keeping systems and train your HR and production teams to run consistent, non-discriminatory checks that protect both the business and the people you work with.
Right to work compliance is changing and the businesses that treat this as an opportunity to professionalise their processes, rather than a burden to endure, will be in the strongest position. We’re already helping clients across many sectors build practical, proportionate frameworks that work at the pace productions demand. If you’d like to get ahead of this, we’d be happy to help.
Dissecting the new EHRC Services Code of Practice and its implication for single sex bathroom facilities in the workplace
After many (many!) months, we finally have the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new draft Code of Practice for services, public functions, and associations (the “Code”), following the Supreme Court’s decision in the For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers case decided back in April 2025. The aim of the Code is to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling that, for Equality Act purposes, sex means biological sex, while simultaneously reaffirming that trans people remain protected under gender reassignment legislation. Service providers offering single sex facilities must therefore ensure that their facilities are reserved for those of the correct biological sex, so as to not “disadvantage” that sex. However, policies must also be justified, supported by evidence and be proportionate.
The Code only applies to the provision of goods and services and at this stage isn’t applicable to workplaces/employers. The workplace requirements will follow separately (and we seriously hope we don’t have to wait as long for them!). In the meantime, the Code presumably provides us with an idea of the likely direction of travel for employers considering the shape of their future bathroom facilities.
The Code accepts that maintaining single-sex services is likely to disadvantage trans people and that it would rarely, if ever, be proportionate to leave a trans person with no service they can use. But the practical difficulty of implementing the Code in some locations may mean just that.
There is considerable controversy regarding the Code and it is not difficult to understand why. Policies that ultimately deny bathroom access to someone that identifies as a certain gender raises genuine dignity, safety, and exclusion concerns. So, what is the solution? Ideally you would provide gender-neutral or unisex facilities alongside single-sex provision, giving all users an option without requiring verification or risking exclusion, but again this may not be practical.
Considering these issues with a sector focus can help highlight some of the potential problems. Take sports for example. The Code will make it far easier for sports clubs and leisure facilities to exclude members and participants who are not of the ‘right’ biological sex. But is this really needed where competitive concerns are limited? Exclusion of trans people must still be justified and proportionate if it places them at a particular disadvantage and decisions will therefore need to be recorded with supporting evidence and not based on broad assumptions. The Code will surely make such decisions much easier though.
And what about film and TV? Imagine a hectic production shoot on location with only minimal single sex bathroom facilities available. Would a production truly expect its lead trans actor to make do with improvised arrangements – to put it bluntly, a bush out the back – while the rest of the cast and crew have access to proper facilities?
While the Code only governs service providers, public functions and associations at present, the forthcoming employer guidance is likely to take a similar approach. Employers will almost certainly need clear policies, staff training, careful privacy handling, and a structured framework for balancing the many competing rights that they are going to inevitably face in this area.
Disability and late shifts: lessons from the BBC
If you work in film or TV, you know the drill – early call times, overnight shoots, shifts that stretch well past midnight. Irregular hours are part of the landscape. But a recent EAT decision offers a useful lesson on how employers should approach disability knowledge and reasonable adjustments when schedules are demanding.
In Cunningham v British Broadcasting Corporation, a TV presentation director with type-2 diabetes asked the BBC for adjustments to her shift pattern. The BBC pulled her off the very earliest and latest shifts but kept her on one finishing at 00:30am. While working that shift, she was 45 seconds late cueing a live news broadcast. A disciplinary investigation followed. The employment tribunal initially sided with the BBC, finding it didn’t know she was disabled. The EAT, however, firmly disagreed.
The EAT made clear that employers can’t bury their heads in the sand. The BBC knew about the diabetes diagnosis and about the fatigue as the employee had described her condition as a disability. An occupational health report explicitly referenced “reasonable adjustments.” If there was any doubt about whether the condition was long-term, the BBC should have asked, and if it had, the answer would obviously have been yes. They therefore had constructive knowledge of the employee’s disability.
For all employers, this is a helpful prompt to review internal processes. Employees and contractors often disclose health conditions informally or in passing. The lesson here is that once you’re aware of a condition and its effects, it’s worth taking proactive steps rather than waiting for a formal diagnosis to land on your desk.
This case is a valuable reminder to take care when managing employees with health difficulties. Knowledge of a disability does not require a formal doctor’s assessment; it’s about joining the dots between what you’ve been told and what you can reasonably assess based on the facts.
Expertise