Protecting staff when the difficult interaction comes from outside the workforce

01

The person causing the problem may not appear on the staff list

A school’s employment policies can describe conduct between colleagues in considerable detail while leaving staff uncertain about an interaction with a parent, visitor, customer or contractor. A member of staff may know how to report a colleague but be less sure who will support them when the concern involves a person the school wishes to retain a relationship with. That uncertainty is an organisational issue, not simply an individual’s confidence problem.

The legal development at the end of October is specific. The commencement regulations bring sections 20 to 22 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 into force on 30 October 2026. The changes strengthen the sexual-harassment prevention duty and introduce an obligation concerning harassment by third parties. The commencement instrument, rather than an earlier announcement of intent, establishes the relevant date.12

02

Keep the two protections distinct

The government’s employer explanation distinguishes taking all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from not permitting harassment of employees by third parties. The latter concerns the relevant Equality Act framework and is not limited to sexual harassment. These propositions should not be collapsed into a claim that every unpleasant interaction is legally harassment or that one response fits every situation.3

For an independent school, the practical question is how the applicable duties reach the work staff actually do. Reception, admissions, finance, events, transport and other functions involve different interactions and authority. The school should understand those differences before relying on a general policy statement. This analysis does not determine the legal character of a particular incident. That requires the facts and the relevant professional assessment.

03

Prevention needs an account of the interaction

Acas guidance addresses steps to prevent harassment and the significance of third-party conduct following the change. It gives examples rather than a complete prescription for every employer. School Connection’s assessment is that a useful school review should identify where staff may face a difficult interaction, what support is available and who can intervene. A policy is less useful if the person expected to use it cannot obtain that support.4

Consider a hypothetical situation in which an employee reports repeated conduct by an external contact. The school needs a route to receive the concern, preserve an appropriate record, assess it fairly and decide what action is warranted. Asking the employee simply to manage the relationship may leave the organisation’s responsibility unexamined. Equally, a response should not prejudge disputed facts or ignore a fair process.

04

Leadership authority matters at the moment support is needed

A frontline member of staff may be able to end a conversation but lack authority to alter access, change arrangements or place conditions on future contact. The school should make clear where those decisions sit. Otherwise a reporting route can exist on paper while the person receiving the report cannot authorise a meaningful response. The gap becomes particularly visible outside ordinary administrative hours.

Our earlier workforce feature examined whether staff are supported through the actual operating plan. The October change adds a different but connected mechanism: a dependable route from a concern about conduct to a decision by someone with authority. Training can help staff recognise and report issues. It cannot, by itself, supply the leadership decision, resources or organisational backing needed to act.

05

Contractual and digital relationships may carry the same issue

The government’s explanation identifies customers and clients as examples of third parties. In a school setting, the relevant interaction may occur through email, a meeting, an event or another work context. The assessment should follow the actual circumstances rather than assume the issue is confined to the physical site. A digital channel does not make the experience external to the school’s operating model.35

Where another organisation is involved, the school should understand the relationship and the people able to address it. A contract or code of conduct may be relevant, but its existence does not demonstrate that staff know how to obtain help. The governing evidence should connect the agreed expectations to the procedure that works when a concern arises, with appropriate confidentiality and a fair account of the facts.

06

Assurance should describe what changed after a concern

Boards should be cautious about using low complaint numbers as evidence that prevention is effective. Numbers can reflect the ease of raising a concern as well as the incidence of conduct. The more informative account explains the reporting route, the treatment of concerns, recurring patterns and the actions that followed. It should protect personal information and avoid making an internal score a substitute for understanding the underlying issue.

The leadership task is proportionate implementation. An independent school should establish the provisions that apply, obtain appropriate HR or legal advice where needed and examine whether its arrangements reach the relevant interactions. School Connection is not recommending a particular sanction or determining employer liability. We are identifying the connection between a commenced duty and the support employees can actually access.

07

The watch begins with practice after commencement

The 30 October date matters because it separates the new legal position from earlier preparation. Future official guidance and case law may clarify application. They should be reported with the same care: what changed, which population is affected and what remains uncertain. A broad reform headline should not be used to imply that every part of the Employment Rights Act commenced at once.

A school would provide stronger assurance by demonstrating that concerns lead to timely, fair decisions by people with authority and that prevention changes when evidence warrants it. Repeatedly putting an external relationship ahead of examining a staff member’s concern would undermine that assurance.

No school-level incident or employment dispute was investigated for this article. Its purpose is to make the implementation question visible while preserving the boundary of the evidence.

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Official clarification and relevant legal developments after commencement.
• Evidence of implemented staff support, prevention and fair response.
• Demonstrable supported and fair response would strengthen assurance; persistent unowned external-conduct concerns would weaken it.

Continue the evidence trail

Read across the historical record

• A day-one leave right still needs a precise conversation about notice and pay ↗

The continuing record

How the record develops

• Boarding employment plans need a clearer account of accommodation and shifts ↗

  Adds another distinct part of the employment-reform programme while preserving the different current and future implementation dates.