A wider boundary for workplace risk
From 30 October 2026, education employers must adjust to two changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Employers will be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees. They will also face liability where an employee is harassed by a third party in the course of employment and the employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment.
These are duties across Great Britain, so they apply to education employers in both England and Wales. For a school, academy trust or college, the workplace can include the reception desk, a parents’ evening, a sports fixture, an online meeting, an educational visit or a student placement. The people creating the risk may include parents, pupils, contractors, visitors or members of the public.
The change is important because many existing policies concentrate on misconduct between colleagues. A technically sound staff policy will not be enough if the institution has not considered the third parties with whom its employees regularly interact.
What becomes mandatory and what does not
These changes build on the preventative duty introduced in October 2024, which already requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. From 30 October 2026, that obligation becomes more demanding on employers.
The new third party duty covers harassment related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, except pregnancy and maternity and marriage or civil partnership. It also covers sexual harassment. The question is not simply whether a parent, pupil or contractor behaved badly. Liability turns on whether the conduct occurred in the course of the employee’s work and whether the employer failed to take all reasonable preventive steps.
“All reasonable steps” is a fact sensitive standard. It does not guarantee that harassment will never happen. It does require an employer to identify foreseeable risks and respond proportionately before harm occurs. Further guidance is expected to assist employers in demonstrating compliance, but the statutory duty itself takes effect on 30 October 2026 and does not depend on the publication of additional guidance.
It goes without saying that this does not mean that every difficult parent interaction is unlawful harassment. Robust disagreement about a decision, expressed without conduct connected to a protected characteristic or of a sexual nature, may fall outside the definition. Institutions should avoid labelling every complaint as harassment. Equally, they should not dismiss discriminatory or sexualised conduct as merely part of a public facing employee’s job.
Why education settings need a tailored response
The education context creates distinctive pressure points. Staff may be expected to maintain relationships with families over several years. A pupil’s behaviour may need a safeguarding, SEND or behaviour response as well as an employment response. Leaders may also hesitate to restrict a parent’s access because they fear escalating a dispute.
Those factors affect what steps are reasonable, but they do not justify inaction. Consider a parent who repeatedly makes race related remarks to a receptionist. If the school records each incident but tells the employee to ignore them because the parent is “difficult”, it may struggle to show that it took all reasonable steps. A more defensible response could include a clear warning, a named channel for future communication, controlled access to the site, support for the employee and escalation if the conduct continues.
The appropriate response to a pupil will often differ. Age, capacity, SEND and safeguarding information may be relevant. The employer may still need to protect the employee through staffing adjustments, a risk assessment, behaviour interventions and specialist support. The duty is preventive; it does not require an institution to abandon its responsibilities to the pupil.
Trade union access also changes on 30 October
The same commencement date brings a statutory framework for trade union access to workplaces. Qualifying independent trade unions, including recognised unions, will be able to seek access for purposes including meeting, supporting, representing, recruiting and organising workers and facilitating collective bargaining. The statutory access purpose excludes organising industrial action.
Education employers should expect requests to engage both operational and safeguarding concerns. A union’s request for physical access to staff areas, or digital access to communicate with a defined workforce, cannot sensibly be managed by reception staff or an ad hoc email exchange. Nor should “safeguarding” be used as a blanket reason for refusal where proportionate arrangements could address the risk.
The regulations provide a process for requests, responses and, where agreement cannot be reached, determination by the Central Arbitration Committee. Trusts and college groups should decide now who has authority to negotiate access terms and how decisions will be documented. Independent schools should do the same even where union activity has historically been limited; the new framework may prompt requests that have not previously arisen.
Actions before 30 October
The HR lead should coordinate a short, evidence based readiness exercise with safeguarding, estates, communications and operational leaders.
- Map third party contact. Identify roles exposed to pupils, parents, contractors, visitors and the public, including remote and off-site contact. Prioritise known pressure points such as reception, admissions, complaints, events, transport and placements.
- Review controls, not just policies. Check parent and visitor codes, contractor terms, event arrangements, online meeting controls and escalation routes. A policy that staff cannot use in practice is weak evidence of prevention.
- Create more than one reporting route. An employee may not feel able to report to their immediate manager, particularly where the manager has encouraged them to tolerate the conduct. Provide an alternative HR or safeguarding route and explain what will happen after a report.
- Train for decisions, not definitions. Managers need to recognise protected characteristic and sexual harassment, preserve evidence, support the employee and select a proportionate response. Reception, pastoral and site staff need concise guidance relevant to their roles.
- Prepare a union-access protocol. Nominate the decision-maker, gather site and digital security information, and create a process for timely written responses. Any restrictions should be linked to genuine operational or safeguarding needs and should consider workable alternatives.
- Keep an audit trail. Record risk assessments, training, reported incidents, actions and reasons. The institution may later need to demonstrate what it knew, what it did and why those steps were reasonable.
Do not overlook the change already in force
Since 1 October 2026, the limitation period for most employment tribunal claims has increased from three months to six months for relevant events occurring on or after that date. The detailed calculation of time limits remains claim specific, and Acas early conciliation can affect the deadline. HR teams should therefore retain investigation material and correspondence on the assumption that disputes may remain live for longer, while taking advice on the deadline in any particular case.
The immediate priority is not another generic policy. It is to connect equality, safeguarding, parent conduct, site access and employee relations into one workable system before 30 October. Institutions that can show a realistic assessment of their own risks and prompt action when warning signs appear will be in a materially stronger position.
