Rating 0 / 60

Module 1 · Employment Rights Act 2025

The Call-In

A new employee phones in sick. You’re about to apply the wrong rules — and it’s going to cost the company.

ERA 2025 — Interactive Investigation

The Call-In

A new employee phones in sick. You’re about to apply the wrong rules — and it’s going to cost the company.

Before You Start

How This Works

This is a choose-your-own-adventure investigation. You’ll face real decisions that a line manager encounters when the Employment Rights Act 2025 is in play — and your choices determine the outcome.

Case Quality Score

+3 Legally sound — what an employment law specialist would advise
+1 Reasonable but incomplete — on the right track
−1 Legally risky — a Fair Work Agency investigator would flag this

Evidence Board

The sidebar tracks your case file. Evidence and legal references are added as the investigation progresses. Click any entry to review it.

Your Verdict

Your final score determines whether you’re rated Legally Sound, Reasonable, or At Risk. Every decision is explained regardless of which path you take.

Difficulty Mode

Choose how deep you want to go. This affects key decision points where the law gets complex.

Before the Phone Rings

Open the Case File

Three documents are on your desk before the shift briefing. Review each one, then select all documents that are directly affected by the ERA 2025 changes.

Monday, 07:42

Monday Morning

You step out of the briefing room to take the call.

Kezia Williams
Kezia Williams
Warehouse Packer
Morning. It’s Kezia. I’m so sorry — I’ve got a chest infection. My throat is completely gone. I won’t be in today.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager (You)
Sorry to hear that. How long do you think you’ll be off?
Kezia Williams
Kezia Williams
Warehouse Packer
Doctor said three to five days minimum. I just wanted to check — am I entitled to SSP? I know I’ve only been here a few weeks, but I checked the ACAS website and—
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager (You)
Let me come back to you on that. Feel better.

You hang up. Dave Thornton is already walking toward you across the floor.

Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
Who was that? Not a call-in, I hope. Monday mornings.
Monday, 07:50
⚖ Decision Point 1 of 3

What do you tell Kezia about SSP?

You call Kezia back. She asks directly: when does her SSP start?

Your choice
A
“There’s a three-day wait — you won’t receive SSP until Thursday.”
Give Kezia a definitive answer based on what you know.
Your choice
B
“I’ll need to check with HR and come back to you.”
Buy yourself time to look it up.
Your choice
C
“SSP starts from your first day off sick — the waiting period was removed in April. I’ll notify payroll today.”
Give Kezia a definitive answer and take immediate action.
Consequence
−20 Wrong rule applied

Three-Day Wait — That Law Changed

Kezia Williams
Kezia Williams
Warehouse Packer
I’m sorry — three days? I’ve checked. The Employment Rights Act 2025 removed the waiting period from the 6th of April. I should be paid from today.
Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Jamie — Kezia’s right. Section 10 of the 2025 Act abolished the three waiting days from 6 April. If you’ve told her otherwise, you’ll need to correct it. And if this goes further, Beacon’s exposed.

The three-day waiting period for SSP was abolished by the Employment Rights Act 2025 (s.10), effective 6 April 2026. Kezia is entitled to SSP from her first qualifying day of sickness. Beacon also risks scrutiny from the Fair Work Agency, which came into existence on 7 April 2026 with enforcement powers over SSP compliance.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.10 — SSP: Removal of Waiting Period
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to be sick for 3 consecutive qualifying days before SSP became payable. The Employment Rights Act 2025 s.10 removed all waiting days from 6 April 2026. SSP is now payable from the first qualifying day of sickness.
Consequence
+5 Good instinct

Good Instinct — But Act on It

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Good that you checked. The answer is SSP from day one — the Employment Rights Act 2025 removed the waiting period on 6 April. Make sure you confirm that with Kezia and update payroll today.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
Got it. I’ll call her back now.

Checking with HR was the right instinct. Going forward, SSP is payable from Kezia’s first qualifying day of absence. Managers need to know this rule directly — it affects every sick leave situation.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.10 — SSP: Removal of Waiting Period
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to be sick for 3 consecutive qualifying days before SSP became payable. The Employment Rights Act 2025 s.10 removed all waiting days from 6 April 2026. SSP is now payable from the first qualifying day of sickness.
Consequence
+20 Correct

Correct — SSP from Day One

Kezia Williams
Kezia Williams
Warehouse Packer
That’s what I thought. Thank you for confirming.
Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Good call, Jamie. Waiting days are gone. SSP runs from her first qualifying day. I’ll make sure payroll has the updated guidance.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 s.10 removed the three-day waiting period from 6 April 2026. Kezia is informed correctly. Payroll will process SSP from today.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.10 — SSP: Removal of Waiting Period
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to be sick for 3 consecutive qualifying days before SSP became payable. The Employment Rights Act 2025 s.10 removed all waiting days from 6 April 2026. SSP is now payable from the first qualifying day of sickness.
Monday, 08:30

Dave Pushes Back

You find Dave Thornton at his desk reviewing the shift roster.

Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
Kezia Williams. Four weeks in, already calling in sick. How much is she even earning — she’s only part-time, isn’t she? I don’t think she’d even qualify for SSP anyway.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
She’s on 10 hours a week at minimum wage. Around £127 a week.
Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
Well there you go. Old lower earnings limit was £123. She barely scrapes over it. And if she’d been earning less, she wouldn’t have qualified at all. Case closed.
Monday, 08:35
⚖ Decision Point 2 of 3

Is Kezia’s earnings level relevant?

Dave is applying the old lower earnings limit. How do you respond?

Your choice
A
“You’re right — if she’d earned less she wouldn’t have qualified, but she just makes the threshold.”
Agree with your manager’s reading of the rules.
Your choice
B
“The earnings threshold was removed in April, Dave. Her earnings aren’t relevant to eligibility anymore.”
Challenge Dave’s assumption directly.
Your choice
C
“I’ll check with Rachel — I’m not sure on that one.”
Escalate to someone more senior.
Consequence
−15 Wrong rule applied

The Threshold Doesn’t Exist Anymore

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Jamie, I’ve just seen the payroll query. The lower earnings limit was removed by section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 — also from 6 April. There is no threshold anymore. Every employee qualifies for SSP regardless of what they earn. We need to stop applying the old test.

The lower earnings limit for SSP — previously £123/week — was abolished by ERA 2025 s.11 from 6 April 2026. All employees are now eligible for SSP regardless of their earnings. For employees earning less than the standard SSP rate, SSP is paid at 80% of average weekly earnings or £123.25, whichever is lower.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.11 — Lower Earnings Limit Removed
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to earn at least £123/week to qualify for SSP. ERA 2025 s.11 removed this threshold. All employees now qualify from 6 April 2026, regardless of hours or earnings.
Consequence
+0 Deferred

Rachel Has the Answer

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
The lower earnings limit was removed by ERA 2025 s.11 in April. Kezia qualifies regardless of what she earns. You should both know this for future reference — it’ll come up again.

ERA 2025 s.11 abolished the lower earnings limit from 6 April 2026. Deferring to HR is a reasonable backstop, but managers should be familiar with this rule directly.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.11 — Lower Earnings Limit Removed
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to earn at least £123/week to qualify for SSP. ERA 2025 s.11 removed this threshold. All employees now qualify from 6 April 2026, regardless of hours or earnings.
Consequence
+20 Correct

Correct — Threshold Gone

Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
What? Since when?
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
Sixth of April. Section 11. It applies to every employee now, regardless of earnings. Rachel sent round a briefing on it.
Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
I must have missed that. Fine. But I still want to monitor her attendance.

ERA 2025 s.11 removed the lower earnings limit from 6 April 2026. Every employee qualifies for SSP. For Kezia — earning ~£127/week — SSP is paid at the standard rate of £123.25/week.

⚖ ERA 2025, s.11 — Lower Earnings Limit Removed
Before 6 April 2026, employees had to earn at least £123/week to qualify for SSP. ERA 2025 s.11 removed this threshold. All employees now qualify from 6 April 2026, regardless of hours or earnings.
The Law, Before and After

What Changed on 6 April 2026

Review both columns. Click each changed rule on the right to confirm you’ve understood the difference.

Before 6 April 2026
3 waiting days
SSP not payable for the first three qualifying days of absence.
Lower earnings limit
Employees must earn at least £123/week to qualify for SSP.
Standard rate: £109.40/week
Paid at this rate regardless of actual earnings.
From 6 April 2026 (ERA 2025)
CHANGED
✓ No waiting days
SSP is payable from the first qualifying day of sickness (ERA 2025 s.10)
CHANGED
✓ No earnings limit
All employees qualify regardless of how much they earn (ERA 2025 s.11)
CHANGED
✓ Low earner rate
Employees earning less receive the lesser of 80% of weekly earnings or £123.25/week
Friday, 09:15

Day Five

Kezia is still off. It’s day five. Her GP issued a fit note. Dave finds you in the corridor.

Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
Five days. New starter, part-time, and she’s already racked up five sick days. I want you to put a formal note on her file. Something that says we’re watching this. Maybe invite her to a return-to-work meeting and make it uncomfortable — let her know this won’t be tolerated.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
She’s been signed off by her GP. Chest infection.
Dave Thornton
Dave Thornton
Operations Director
I don’t care. I want a paper trail. If she thinks she can just call in whenever she feels like it — especially as a new starter — we need to make an example.
Friday, 09:20
⚖ Decision Point 3 of 3

How do you handle Dave’s request?

Dave wants to put a formal note on Kezia’s file and make her return-to-work meeting “uncomfortable.” What do you do?

Your choice
A
Do it — log the absence and flag it formally on her file as a concern.
Do what your manager asked.
Your choice
B
Conduct a standard return-to-work meeting, but don’t treat the absence as a disciplinary matter.
Handle the return-to-work yourself.
Your choice
C
Tell Dave you’ll handle it and then quietly do nothing.
Sidestep the situation entirely.
Consequence
−25 Detriment risk

Penalising Legitimate Sick Leave

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Jamie, I’ve seen the note you put on Kezia’s file. I need you to remove it. Treating an employee adversely because they’ve taken legitimate sick leave is a detriment. She has a GP certificate. The SSP she’s receiving is a statutory right. If she makes a claim — and people do — this note becomes exhibit A.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
Dave asked me to—
Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
I’ll talk to Dave. But this is your file and your decision. You cannot subject an employee to detriment for exercising a statutory right.

Employees have the right not to suffer a detriment for taking statutory sick leave or receiving SSP. Placing a punitive note on Kezia’s file — absent any genuine attendance policy trigger — constitutes such a detriment. If Kezia were dismissed or treated adversely as a result of this sick leave, Beacon would face a detriment and potentially unfair dismissal claim.

⚖ ERA 1996 s.47E — Detriment for Exercising SSP Rights
Employees must not be subjected to detriment for exercising the right to statutory sick pay. Return-to-work meetings are good practice and supportive — but must not be used as a disciplinary mechanism in response to legitimate, certified absence.
Consequence
−5 Avoidance

Avoidance Isn’t Management

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Jamie, Dave has asked me why there’s nothing on Kezia’s file. You need to document the return-to-work meeting properly — but do it correctly. Supportive, not punitive. And you need to have a direct conversation with Dave about what’s appropriate here.

Not following Dave’s instruction was the right instinct, but doing nothing left a gap in the record and a management conflict unresolved. The correct action is a properly documented, supportive return-to-work meeting — and a direct conversation with Dave about the limits of absence management.

⚖ ERA 1996 s.47E — Detriment for Exercising SSP Rights
Employees must not be subjected to detriment for exercising the right to statutory sick pay. Return-to-work meetings are good practice and supportive — but must not be used as a disciplinary mechanism in response to legitimate, certified absence.
Consequence
+20 Correct

The Right Process

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Good approach, Jamie. I’d suggest framing the meeting around support — is she fully recovered, does she need a phased return, are there any reasonable adjustments. That’s the record you want.
Jamie Lawson
Jamie Lawson
Operations Manager
What do I tell Dave?
Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Tell him you followed the return-to-work process and Kezia is fit to return Monday. If Dave wants to discuss attendance thresholds, that’s a separate conversation — but not one triggered by a single certified absence.

A standard return-to-work meeting is appropriate after any period of absence — supportive and documentary, not punitive. Creating a punitive paper trail in response to certified sick leave would expose Beacon to a detriment claim.

⚖ Return-to-Work Best Practice
Return-to-work meetings should cover: fitness to return, any support needed, whether reasonable adjustments apply, and a note of the meeting. They must not be used as a substitute for formal absence management proceedings triggered by a single certified absence.
Expert Deep Dive
Expert Analysis — 1 of 4

Detriment vs Misconduct: The Legal Line

Dave’s request sits on one of the most litigated lines in employment law: when does an employer’s response to sickness absence cross from legitimate management into unlawful detriment?

The Core Distinction

Misconduct management is lawful. If an employee calls in sick but is spotted at a football match, the employer is entitled to investigate and discipline. That’s not detriment — it’s responding to dishonesty.

Detriment for exercising a statutory right is unlawful. If an employee is genuinely ill, has a GP certificate, and the employer places a punitive note on file, reduces shifts, or makes the return-to-work meeting deliberately hostile — that is detriment under ERA 1996 s.47C.

The question is always: what was the real reason for the employer’s action? If it was the employee’s use of a statutory right (SSP, sick leave), it’s detriment. If it was genuinely about something else (dishonesty, pattern abuse with evidence), it may not be.

⚖ Key Principle
A return-to-work meeting is always appropriate. A punitive note is not — unless triggered by a genuine policy threshold (e.g. Bradford Factor trigger), not by a single certified absence.
Expert Deep Dive
Expert Analysis — 2 of 4

ERA 1996 s.47C & s.47E: The Statutory Shield

Two provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended) create the statutory protection Kezia would rely on if she brought a claim.

Section 47C — Leave Rights

An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, by their employer because the employee took or sought to take time off to which they are entitled under the statutory framework.

This was originally drafted for parental leave and dependants’ leave, but its scope has expanded through amendment and case law to cover circumstances where an employer retaliates against legitimate statutory entitlements.

Section 47E — SSP Detriment (post-ERA 2025)

From 6 April 2026, the ERA 2025 strengthened protections specifically for SSP-related detriment. An employee must not be subjected to detriment on the ground that they exercised or sought to exercise their right to statutory sick pay.

This covers: punitive file notes, hostile return-to-work meetings, shift reductions, informal warnings, or any adverse treatment where SSP exercise was a material factor in the employer’s decision.

⚖ “Material Factor” Test
The employee doesn’t have to prove the detriment was solely because of their sick leave. If the SSP exercise was a material factor in the employer’s decision, that’s enough. This is a lower bar than many managers expect.
Expert Deep Dive
Expert Analysis — 3 of 4

Case Law: When Managers Crossed the Line

These cases show how tribunals have drawn the line between lawful management and unlawful detriment in practice.

Jhuti v Royal Mail Group [2019] UKSC 55

The Supreme Court held that where an employee is dismissed for a fictitious reason manufactured to hide the real reason (in that case, whistleblowing), the tribunal must look at the real reason, not the label the employer applied.

Relevance to Kezia: If Beacon later tried to dismiss Kezia citing “attendance concerns” but the real trigger was her SSP claim, a tribunal would look behind the label.

Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute [2015] UKEAT

The EAT found that a “formal meeting about sickness levels” constituted detriment when the employee’s absences were all certified and the employer had no genuine attendance management threshold that had been triggered.

Relevance to Kezia: Dave’s request is almost exactly this scenario — a formal note on file triggered by a single certified absence, with no policy threshold met.

Grange v Abellio London [2018] UKEAT

The EAT confirmed that a “return-to-work interview” designed to deter future absence (rather than support the employee) can constitute detriment, even if the employer describes it as “standard procedure.”

Relevance to Kezia: Dave explicitly asked you to make the meeting “uncomfortable” — this is the exact conduct flagged in Grange.

Expert Deep Dive
Expert Analysis — 4 of 4

Burden of Proof: Who Proves What?

In a detriment claim, the burden of proof shifts in a way that catches many employers off guard.

The Shifting Burden

Step 1 — Employee: Kezia only needs to show (a) she exercised a statutory right (taking SSP), and (b) she suffered a detriment (the punitive note). She does not need to prove why Beacon did it.

Step 2 — Employer: Once Kezia establishes those two facts, the burden shifts to Beacon to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of her SSP exercise.

That is a very high bar. If the tribunal finds SSP was even a minor factor in the decision to place the note on file, the claim succeeds.

Fair Work Agency Enforcement (from 7 April 2026)

The Fair Work Agency now has investigative and enforcement powers over SSP compliance. This means detriment doesn’t have to lead to a tribunal claim to create problems — an FWA investigation alone can result in compliance notices, financial penalties, and reputational damage.

Dave’s punitive note on Kezia’s file would be exactly the kind of evidence that triggers an adverse finding in an FWA inspection.

⚖ Bottom Line for Managers
If an employee is genuinely ill, has a certificate, and takes SSP they’re entitled to — any adverse action you take in response is a detriment claim waiting to happen. The burden is on you to prove otherwise, and “my director told me to” is not a defence.
Guided Coaching
Coaching — 1 of 3

Let’s Think This Through

Before we move on, let’s break down why Dave’s request was problematic — even though it might have felt reasonable in the moment.

What did Dave actually ask for?

Dave asked for two things:

  • A formal note on Kezia’s file flagging her absence as a concern
  • A return-to-work meeting designed to be “uncomfortable” — to send a message

On the surface, both sound like things a manager might do. But the law draws a clear line between managing attendance and punishing someone for being ill.

Ask yourself:

Was there any evidence that Kezia was not genuinely ill? No — she had a GP certificate for a chest infection.

Had any attendance management threshold been triggered? No — this was a single absence in four weeks of employment.

What was the real purpose of the file note? To deter future absence, not to document a policy-driven process.

Guided Coaching
Coaching — 2 of 3

Punitive vs Supportive: A Side-by-Side

Here’s how two different return-to-work meetings for the same absence look — one lawful, one potentially a detriment claim.

The Punitive Approach (what Dave wanted)
  • “This is your first absence — we’re watching this.”
  • Formal note on file flagging “attendance concern”
  • Meeting designed to make Kezia feel she’d be penalised for being ill again
  • No discussion of support, phased return, or adjustments

Risk: This is detriment for exercising a statutory right. If Kezia complains, that file note is evidence against you.

The Supportive Approach (best practice)
  • “Welcome back. Are you fully recovered?”
  • Ask about any support needed — phased return, workspace adjustments
  • Document the meeting as a standard return-to-work record (not a concern)
  • Note the GP certificate and that SSP was correctly processed

Result: Good record, good process, no legal exposure. Dave can raise attendance thresholds separately — when there’s actually a pattern to address.

Guided Coaching
Coaching — 3 of 3

Key Takeaway

Here’s the rule of thumb to carry forward from this situation.

The Simple Test

Before taking any action in response to an employee’s sickness absence, ask yourself:

“Would I be taking this action if the employee had not been off sick?”

If the answer is no, you’re at risk of a detriment claim. The action is driven by the absence itself — not by a genuine management concern.

When CAN you act on attendance?
  • When a policy-defined trigger has been reached (e.g. Bradford Factor, 3+ absences in 12 months)
  • When there is evidence of dishonesty (not just suspicion)
  • When the absence management procedure explicitly requires a formal step

None of these applied to Kezia. One certified absence in four weeks is not a trigger — it’s exactly what sick pay exists for.

★ Remember
Employees cannot be subjected to detriment for exercising their right to SSP. Return-to-work meetings are good practice — but they must be supportive, not punitive. “My director told me to” is not a defence.
Case Review

The Following Monday

Kezia returns to work on Monday. Her sick pay was processed correctly — from day one, at the standard SSP rate. The return-to-work meeting was documented. Rachel sends an all-manager bulletin reminding the team of the April 2026 changes. Dave reads it this time. Two more members of your team call in sick over the following fortnight. You handle both correctly.

Rachel Obi
Rachel Obi
HR Advisor
Nice work, Jamie. The SSP changes catch a lot of managers out. Now you know — and so does Dave.
Investigation Rating — 60 possible

Built by Blend Training  |  blend.training

Module 1 · Case Closed

The Call-In

Your decisions shaped the outcome. Time to review what you learned.

Key Takeaways

What You Need to Know

These are the legal rules that changed on 6 April 2026. Every manager handling sickness absence must know them.

1
SSP is payable from the first day of sickness
ERA 2025, s.10 — The three-day waiting period is abolished. No more waiting days.
2
All employees qualify for SSP regardless of earnings
ERA 2025, s.11 — The lower earnings limit (£123/week) is removed. Low earners receive the lesser of 80% of weekly earnings or £123.25/week.
3
You cannot penalise someone for taking legitimate sick leave
ERA 1996, s.47E — Detriment for exercising SSP rights is unlawful. Punitive file notes, hostile return-to-work meetings, and shift reductions are all potential detriment.
4
The Fair Work Agency can now investigate SSP compliance
Created 7 April 2026, with powers to issue compliance notices and financial penalties for SSP non-compliance.
Take the Module Quiz →

Built by Blend Training  |  blend.training