About this page
All entries are sourced from publicly available UK legislation, official government publications, ACAS guidance, CAA publications, and verified reported case law. Sources are linked. The relevance notes are general observations only — not legal advice and not an assessment of your specific situation. For information on your circumstances, contact me directly.
Electronic Balloting for Industrial Action — In Force 25 August 2026
The Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI 2026/881) was made on 28 July 2026. Its main provisions (Part 2) come into force on 25 August 2026 — 28 days after the date of making. From that date, trade unions may conduct industrial action ballots, political fund ballots, union elections, and union merger ballots using electronic, hybrid, or postal voting. Previously, only postal balloting was permitted. A Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Balloting also comes into force on the same date. Electronic voting platforms must be cybersecurity-certified and must maintain full audit trails.
Verified — legislation.gov.uk: SI 2026/881 made 28 July 2026. Part 2 (trade union balloting amendments) in force 25 August 2026 per article 1(3). The Order amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to permit electronic and workplace voting alongside existing postal voting.
Relevance to aviation professionals: BALPA and other unions representing pilots and cabin crew use statutory industrial action ballots. The ability to ballot electronically rather than only by post may reduce the time and cost involved in conducting ballots, and could affect the speed at which industrial action can be progressed or resolved. Crew who are union members should be aware that their union may contact them to register for electronic balloting.
Source: legislation.gov.uk — SI 2026/881 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: BALPA and other unions representing pilots and cabin crew use statutory industrial action ballots. The ability to ballot electronically rather than only by post may reduce the time and cost involved in conducting ballots, and could affect the speed at which industrial action can be progressed or resolved. Crew who are union members should be aware that their union may contact them to register for electronic balloting.
Source: legislation.gov.uk — SI 2026/881 ↗
ACAS Consultation — Revised Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
ACAS opened a public consultation on 30 July 2026 on a draft revised Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The current Code has been in force since 2015. The draft proposes significant changes: a greater emphasis on informal resolution before formal proceedings are commenced; a shift away from adversarial language (using "concerns" rather than "allegations" in the informal phase); restrictions on the use of suspension to specific circumstances; introduction of mediation and facilitated conversations as resolution options; new discrimination and equality guidance; and clarification of accompaniment rights at both informal and formal meetings. The consultation closes 23 September 2026. The revised Code will require Secretary of State approval and parliamentary approval before coming into force.
Verified — ACAS: Consultation opened 30 July 2026, closes 23 September 2026. Draft Code published at acas.org.uk. Once in force, the Code carries statutory weight in Employment Tribunal proceedings — a failure to follow it can result in an adjustment to any award of up to 25%.
Relevance to aviation professionals: The ACAS Code of Practice governs how disciplinary and grievance procedures should be conducted by all employers, including airlines. Any revision affects how aviation disciplinary processes are assessed in tribunal proceedings. The proposed emphasis on informal resolution and the proposed restrictions on suspension are particularly relevant to crew facing early-stage disciplinary action.
Source: ACAS — Consultation on revised Code of Practice ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: The ACAS Code of Practice governs how disciplinary and grievance procedures should be conducted by all employers, including airlines. Any revision affects how aviation disciplinary processes are assessed in tribunal proceedings. The proposed emphasis on informal resolution and the proposed restrictions on suspension are particularly relevant to crew facing early-stage disciplinary action.
Source: ACAS — Consultation on revised Code of Practice ↗
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill — Lords Stages Complete, Sent to Commons
The Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (HL Bill 4125, session 2026–27) completed all its stages in the House of Lords on 20 July 2026 when it passed Third Reading and was sent to the House of Commons. The Bill aims to modernise UK aviation law to improve consumer protection, reform the CAA's regulatory powers, update airport slot rules, and address aviation offences. Lords committee stage (16–18 June 2026) and report stage (13 July 2026) scrutinised amendments covering family seating obligations, disabled passenger protections, slot coordinator oversight, CAA enforcement powers, and airport drop-off charges. The Government was defeated on one amendment at report stage: a requirement for the Government to review the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers within six months was carried against the Government's wishes.
Verified — UK Parliament: Lords Third Reading completed 20 July 2026. Bill proceeds to the House of Commons for further scrutiny. HL Bill 4125 of session 2026–27.
Relevance to aviation professionals: The Bill focuses primarily on consumer protection and CAA regulatory reform rather than crew employment rights directly. However, provisions strengthening the CAA's enforcement powers and scope could indirectly affect how the CAA monitors operator compliance with working time and FTL regulations. The Bill's Commons progress warrants monitoring for any amendments relevant to crew rights or airline regulation.
Source: UK Parliament — Civil Aviation Bill report stage ↗ · bills.parliament.uk — HL Bill 4125 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: The Bill focuses primarily on consumer protection and CAA regulatory reform rather than crew employment rights directly. However, provisions strengthening the CAA's enforcement powers and scope could indirectly affect how the CAA monitors operator compliance with working time and FTL regulations. The Bill's Commons progress warrants monitoring for any amendments relevant to crew rights or airline regulation.
Source: UK Parliament — Civil Aviation Bill report stage ↗ · bills.parliament.uk — HL Bill 4125 ↗
Unfair Dismissal Cap Removal — Partial Commencement Confirmed for 1 July 2026
The Employment Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No. 4) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/559) partially commenced section 25 of the ERA 2025 on 1 July 2026. This commencement enables the power to make consequential amendments in advance of full commencement on 1 January 2027. Full commencement on 1 January 2027 will: reduce the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months; and remove the compensatory award cap (currently £123,543 or 52 weeks' pay, whichever is lower). The Regulations also contain transitional provisions covering cases where the effective date of termination falls before or on/after 1 January 2027.
Verified — legislation.gov.uk: SI 2026/559 (ERA 2025 Commencement No. 4) confirmed on legislation.gov.uk. Full commencement of the unfair dismissal provisions — including qualifying period reduction and cap removal — takes effect 1 January 2027. Anyone employed from around the end of June 2026 onwards will gain protection from January 2027 on commencement.
Relevance to aviation professionals: Crew currently in their first two years of employment will gain access to unfair dismissal protection far sooner than under current law. Removal of the compensatory cap is significant for senior crew and captains whose actual financial losses may exceed the current statutory limit. These are changes worth understanding now, before January 2027.
Source: legislation.gov.uk — SI 2026/559 ↗ · ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: Crew currently in their first two years of employment will gain access to unfair dismissal protection far sooner than under current law. Removal of the compensatory cap is significant for senior crew and captains whose actual financial losses may exceed the current statutory limit. These are changes worth understanding now, before January 2027.
Source: legislation.gov.uk — SI 2026/559 ↗ · ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗
Odujinrin v Ryanair DAC & Ryanair UK Ltd [3203235/2022] — Victimisation Claims Succeed Against Ryanair; Unfair Dismissal Found But No Award
Mr A Odujinrin brought claims against Ryanair DAC and Ryanair UK Ltd including race discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, public interest disclosure, and trade union membership. Employment Judge Massarella sat with members Ms T Jansen and Mr S Woodhouse at the East London Hearing Centre across five weeks in February and March 2026. The reserved judgment was promulgated on 31 May 2026.
What was decided: All direct race discrimination claims failed and were dismissed. Three victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010 succeeded against the First Respondent, Ryanair DAC — concerning the rejection of the claimant's grievance and related matters. Unfair dismissal by the Second Respondent, Ryanair UK Ltd, was found procedurally unfair; however, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding that a fair procedure would inevitably have produced the same outcome. No compensatory award was made. The basic award was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct. Wrongful dismissal was dismissed.
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case shows that victimisation claims arising from the exercise of equality rights can succeed even where the underlying discrimination claims fail — and that an unfair dismissal finding does not automatically lead to compensation where the tribunal finds dismissal was inevitable. Crew raising grievances grounded in protected characteristics should document those grievances carefully: the way an employer handles, rejects, or ignores a grievance may itself constitute unlawful victimisation.
Source: GOV.UK — Case 3203235/2022 · Judgment 31 May 2026 ↗ · Judgment PDF ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case shows that victimisation claims arising from the exercise of equality rights can succeed even where the underlying discrimination claims fail — and that an unfair dismissal finding does not automatically lead to compensation where the tribunal finds dismissal was inevitable. Crew raising grievances grounded in protected characteristics should document those grievances carefully: the way an employer handles, rejects, or ignores a grievance may itself constitute unlawful victimisation.
Source: GOV.UK — Case 3203235/2022 · Judgment 31 May 2026 ↗ · Judgment PDF ↗
Caroline v ICTS (UK) Limited [4100604/2025] — Attendance Management Tunnel Vision Results in £45,129.21 Award
A Security Supervisor at Aberdeen Airport with seven years' service was dismissed in December 2024 following a series of sickness absences managed under a three-stage attendance management policy. Employment Judge Smith at Aberdeen Employment Tribunal (Scotland) found the dismissal unfair on multiple grounds: the dismissing manager misread an Occupational Health report and wrongly concluded there was no underlying health condition; failed to consider the business impact of the absences; and gave no genuine thought to alternatives to dismissal. The appeal was found to have been conducted in a manner that "paid lip service" to the process — grounds were ignored, the outcome letter was inadequate, and the claimant was wrongly told she had no right to a second appeal when the respondent's own policy expressly provided for one.
What was decided: Unfair dismissal established. No Polkey reduction — the tribunal found it too speculative to determine what a fairly-conducted process would have concluded, given the uninvestigated possibility of an underlying condition (reactive arthritis). No contributory conduct reduction. Total award: £7,350 basic award + £37,779.21 compensatory award (capped at 52 weeks' gross pay) = £45,129.21. The compensatory award included grossing up on the amount exceeding £30,000.
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case illustrates what happens when an attendance management process is followed mechanically rather than fairly. The key findings — failure to investigate a possible underlying condition raised by the employee, no consideration of business impact, a defective appeal that ignored the grounds raised, and denial of a contractual right to a second appeal — are directly applicable to airline attendance processes. Any crew member facing attendance management who raises a potential health explanation is entitled to have it properly investigated before a dismissal decision is made.
Source: Employment Tribunals (Scotland) — Case No. 4100604/2025 · Judgment promulgated 24 April 2026 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case illustrates what happens when an attendance management process is followed mechanically rather than fairly. The key findings — failure to investigate a possible underlying condition raised by the employee, no consideration of business impact, a defective appeal that ignored the grounds raised, and denial of a contractual right to a second appeal — are directly applicable to airline attendance processes. Any crew member facing attendance management who raises a potential health explanation is entitled to have it properly investigated before a dismissal decision is made.
Source: Employment Tribunals (Scotland) — Case No. 4100604/2025 · Judgment promulgated 24 April 2026 ↗
Fair Work Agency — Established 7 April 2026
The Fair Work Agency (FWA) was established on 7 April 2026 as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade under the Employment Rights Act 2025. It consolidates enforcement previously split across the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, and HMRC National Minimum Wage enforcement. Powers include: inspecting workplaces, issuing Notices of Underpayment with penalties up to 200% of amounts owed, and bringing tribunal claims on a worker's behalf. NMW enforcement transfers from HMRC to FWA in April 2027.
Verified source — GOV.UK: The FWA enforces relevant labour market legislation set out in Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Employment Rights Act 2025. It has a six-year lookback window for investigations.
Relevance to aviation professionals: Aviation professionals who believe they have experienced unlawful wage deductions, holiday pay shortfalls, or breaches of agency worker regulations now have a dedicated enforcement body in addition to the Employment Tribunal route.
Source: GOV.UK — Fair Work Agency ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: Aviation professionals who believe they have experienced unlawful wage deductions, holiday pay shortfalls, or breaches of agency worker regulations now have a dedicated enforcement body in addition to the Employment Tribunal route.
Source: GOV.UK — Fair Work Agency ↗
ERA 2025 — 6 April 2026 Changes Now in Force
Several provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 came into force on 6 April 2026, including: sexual harassment is now a qualifying disclosure under whistleblowing law, meaning employees who report it are protected from detriment and unfair dismissal; the maximum protective award for failure to consult in collective redundancy situations doubled from 90 to 180 days' pay; employers of all sizes may now voluntarily publish menopause and gender pay gap action plans; trade union recognition procedures have been simplified; and employers must now keep records of annual leave and holiday pay.
Verified — ACAS: All provisions listed above confirmed in force from 6 April 2026 per the ACAS ERA 2025 update page and Commencement No. 2 Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/323).
Relevance to aviation professionals: The whistleblowing extension to cover sexual harassment disclosures is relevant to any crew member who has raised concerns about workplace conduct. The doubling of the protective award for collective redundancy consultation failures is significant in the context of airline base closures or fleet restructuring, where consultation obligations apply.
Source: ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗ · SI 2026/323 — Commencement No. 2 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: The whistleblowing extension to cover sexual harassment disclosures is relevant to any crew member who has raised concerns about workplace conduct. The doubling of the protective award for collective redundancy consultation failures is significant in the context of airline base closures or fleet restructuring, where consultation obligations apply.
Source: ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗ · SI 2026/323 — Commencement No. 2 ↗
Azarkevich v easyJet Airline Company Limited [6023269/2024] — First Officer Dismissed Following Rape Charge Upheld Despite Acquittal
A First Officer employed by easyJet at London Gatwick was dismissed in October 2024 after being charged by police with rape and sexual assault. He was subsequently acquitted in June 2025 when the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued proceedings. His unfair dismissal claim was nonetheless dismissed by Employment Judge Morton at London South Employment Tribunal.
What was decided: The tribunal found easyJet's decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The key finding was that easyJet was entitled to consider the reputational damage and operational impact of retaining a pilot facing serious criminal charges, regardless of the ultimate outcome of those proceedings.
Relevance to aviation professionals: Licence holders facing serious criminal charges outside work may face dismissal even where no conviction follows. Crew in this situation should seek case preparation support at the earliest opportunity.
Source: GOV.UK — Judgment PDF ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: Licence holders facing serious criminal charges outside work may face dismissal even where no conviction follows. Crew in this situation should seek case preparation support at the earliest opportunity.
Source: GOV.UK — Judgment PDF ↗
Pejic v Storm Global Ltd & Ryanair DAC [3202454/2023] — UK Territorial Jurisdiction Rejected for Andorra-Based Contractor; Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations Post-Brexit Scope Clarified
Mr Bosko Pejic, a Serbian-born Canadian citizen who worked as a pilot and resided throughout his employment in Andorra, brought multiple claims against Storm Global Ltd (also known as MCG Aviation) and Ryanair DAC. Claims included unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, agency worker rights, public interest disclosure, and Working Time Regulations. Employment Judge K Hindmarch at the East London Hearing Centre (via CVP) heard the case on 12–13 February 2025 and promulgated a reserved judgment on 29 April 2025. All claims were struck out or dismissed — the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over most claims and the remaining whistleblowing and Ryanair claims were out of time.
What was decided: The tribunal struck out or dismissed all claims on multiple grounds. First, territorial jurisdiction: the claimant's connection to Great Britain was insufficient under the Lawson v Serco expatriate worker test — his home base was Andorra, not Great Britain, and an English law clause in the contract alone could not establish the "especially strong connection" required. Second, employment status: the claimant was found to be a self-employed contractor operating via service companies (Popovica Ltd and Riverside Aviation Limited); he had declined a direct employment offer from Ryanair in April 2022, preferring contractor status. Third — and significantly for aviation working time law — the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 claims failed because Ryanair DAC, as an Irish company, was not "established in the United Kingdom" as required by the Regulations. The tribunal also declined to apply the post-Brexit Bleuse principle (which had extended EU-derived rights to workers in EU member states), holding that the UK is no longer an EU member state and the claimant lived in Andorra, not the EU. The whistleblowing claim was out of time: the claimant's employment ended 15 September 2023; ACAS early conciliation was not initiated until 3–5 January 2024 — after the three-month deadline had expired.
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case is a significant primary source on the territorial reach of UK employment rights for crew working for non-UK airlines via service company structures. The tribunal's confirmation that the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 only apply where the employer is established in the UK, and that the post-Brexit Bleuse extension of EU-derived rights does not assist crew based outside the EU, is directly relevant to pilots and cabin crew based abroad and operating through contractor structures for Irish-incorporated carriers.
Source: GOV.UK — Case 3202454/2023 · Judgment 29 April 2025 ↗ · Judgment PDF ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: This case is a significant primary source on the territorial reach of UK employment rights for crew working for non-UK airlines via service company structures. The tribunal's confirmation that the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 only apply where the employer is established in the UK, and that the post-Brexit Bleuse extension of EU-derived rights does not assist crew based outside the EU, is directly relevant to pilots and cabin crew based abroad and operating through contractor structures for Irish-incorporated carriers.
Source: GOV.UK — Case 3202454/2023 · Judgment 29 April 2025 ↗ · Judgment PDF ↗
Tribunal Time Limits Increase to Six Months — October 2026
From October 2026, the time limit for bringing most Employment Tribunal claims increases from three months to six months. Also effective October 2026: new trade union access rights, zero-hours contract guaranteed hours provisions, and union equality representative rights.
Verified source — ACAS: "Time limits for making a claim to an employment tribunal will increase to 6 months for all claims. The current time limit for most claims is 3 months. This will change in October 2026."
Relevance to aviation professionals: Currently you have three months less one day from the act complained of to bring a claim — a deadline many crew members miss. From October 2026 that doubles to six months. ACAS Early Conciliation is still required first and pauses the clock regardless.
Source: ACAS — Employment Rights Act 2025 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: Currently you have three months less one day from the act complained of to bring a claim — a deadline many crew members miss. From October 2026 that doubles to six months. ACAS Early Conciliation is still required first and pauses the clock regardless.
Source: ACAS — Employment Rights Act 2025 ↗
Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period Reduces to Six Months & Compensation Cap Removed — January 2027
From 1 January 2027: the unfair dismissal qualifying period reduces from two years to six months; the current compensatory award cap (£123,543 or 52 weeks' pay as at April 2026, whichever is lower) is removed entirely. Method of calculation is unchanged — actual and projected losses evidenced by the claimant. These are confirmed changes set out in the Employment Rights Act 2025.
Verified source — GOV.UK: "The qualifying period for protection against 'ordinary' unfair dismissal will be reduced from two years to six months. The current cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal will be removed. Claims will continue to be calculated on the basis of actual and projected losses evidenced by the claimant." Basic award weekly cap as at 6 April 2026: £751.
Relevance to aviation professionals: These are the most significant changes to unfair dismissal law in a generation. The removal of the cap is particularly relevant to senior crew and captains whose actual losses may exceed the current limit. The reduction of the qualifying period protects crew on probationary periods far sooner. Individual assessment of how these changes apply to your situation is recommended.
Source: GOV.UK — Unfair Dismissal Rights ↗ · ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗
Relevance to aviation professionals: These are the most significant changes to unfair dismissal law in a generation. The removal of the cap is particularly relevant to senior crew and captains whose actual losses may exceed the current limit. The reduction of the qualifying period protects crew on probationary periods far sooner. Individual assessment of how these changes apply to your situation is recommended.
Source: GOV.UK — Unfair Dismissal Rights ↗ · ACAS — ERA 2025 ↗
UK Flight Time Limitations — Applicable Regulatory Framework
UK commercial air transport operators holding a UK AOC are subject to Flight Time Limitation requirements under retained EU law as implemented in UK domestic regulation. The framework governs maximum flight duty periods, minimum rest requirements, cumulative duty limits, and operator obligations regarding disruptive schedules. All operators must comply with ARO.OPS.230 on the determination of disruptive schedules, and hold CAA-approved Fatigue Risk Management systems. The applicable legislation includes the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/756) and retained Annex III (EU-OPS) provisions.
Applicable legislation — verified: Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/756); retained EU Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 Annex III; CAA CAP 1616. Operators must not schedule crew beyond permitted FDP limits and must provide minimum rest periods as specified.
Note on this entry: This section will be updated only when the CAA publishes verified new or amended FTL information from a primary source. FTL violation assessments require individual analysis of the interaction between the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and the Working Time Regulations 1998 — this is a complex area that warrants specific professional assessment.
Source: CAA — Flight Time Limitations ↗
Note on this entry: This section will be updated only when the CAA publishes verified new or amended FTL information from a primary source. FTL violation assessments require individual analysis of the interaction between the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and the Working Time Regulations 1998 — this is a complex area that warrants specific professional assessment.
Source: CAA — Flight Time Limitations ↗