United Kingdom: Automotive Employers Must Rethink Workforce Strategy as US Tariffs Hit
The recent imposition of a 25% tariff on automotive imports by US President Donald Trump presents a significant challenge for the UK automotive industry. With the US being the second-largest market for UK car exports, these tariffs threaten job security, could prompt restructuring, and may lead to long-term shifts in workforce dynamics.
For employers, understanding the broader implications is key to preparing for the potential operational and legal impacts.
These tariffs add further strain to an already volatile global automotive market. Around 80% of vehicles produced in the UK are exported, with the US acting as a major trading partner. The increased cost of exporting to the US is likely to dampen demand, placing pressure on UK manufacturers to scale back production, optimise costs, and reassess their workforce planning.
To remain competitive, automotive employers must act quickly. This includes reviewing workforce strategies, ensuring compliance with UK employment laws, and exploring reskilling initiatives and global mobility options. Taking proactive steps now can help businesses mitigate risks while positioning themselves for long-term resilience and growth.
A globally mobile workforce could become a key strategic asset. Some employers may consider shifting part of their operations to the US to bypass tariffs, while others might pivot towards EU markets, where tariff-free trade still applies.
Both paths present opportunities for UK talent, whether through international secondments, local redeployment, or cross-border collaboration.
Ireland: New Bill Requires Employers to Justify Mandatory Retirement Ages Below 66
On 1 April 2025, the Irish government published the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025, a significant development that could reshape retirement practices in Ireland. The Bill introduces new employee rights to remain in work until the State Pension Age of 66, even where a contractual retirement age (CRA) is set below that.
While this edition of Atlas Insights focuses on employment laws in Ireland, it's worth noting how approaches can differ globally. For instance, in many Asian countries, retirement ages can vary dramatically based on gender, industry, and government policy. Comparing these differences highlights the importance of tailoring HR practices to local legal frameworks, especially for businesses operating across multiple regions.
The Bill follows recommendations made in the 2021 Pensions Commission report and builds on the General Scheme published in 2024. While the Employment Equality Acts prohibit age discrimination, employers have historically been permitted to enforce a CRA, provided it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.
A 2024 Supreme Court judgment clarified that employers do not need to justify a CRA on an individual basis under current law. However, the new Bill shifts this approach, requiring justification for each individual employee who wishes to stay beyond their CRA.
Key Provisions
Employee Notification: Employees with a CRA below age 66 who have completed probation can notify their employer that they do not consent to retire at that age.
Timeframe: Notification must be made no fewer than 3 months and no more than 1 year before reaching the CRA. Limits apply on how often a notification can be made.
Employer Response: Employers wishing to enforce the CRA must respond in writing within one month, providing a reasoned and lawful justification.
WRC Complaints: Employees can refer complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission, which can award up to two years’ remuneration (or EUR 40,000, whichever is greater).
Penalisation Prohibited: Employers cannot penalise employees for seeking to stay in work. Non-compliance may also lead to criminal liability for failing to provide a reasoned reply.
Australia: Federal Court Sends Strong Warning on Worker Exploitation
In Australia, a landmark ruling by the Federal Court has underscored the severe legal consequences for employers who exploit vulnerable workers. Last year, penalties totaling AUD 15.3 million (equivalent to around USD 9.8 million) were imposed against the operators of Sushi Bay outlets for the deliberate underpayment of 163 migrant workers between 2016 and 2020.
The affected employees, primarily Korean nationals holding student, working holiday, and subclass 457 visas were subject to substantial underpayments. Key details include:
A total underpayment exceeding AUD 650,000
Individual wage shortfalls ranging from AUD 48 to AUD 83,968
Entitlements to overtime and penalty rates between AUD 25.94 and AUD 48.24 per hour
Actual payments made at flat cash rates between AUD 14 and AUD 18.50 per hour
Five companies were collectively fined AUD 13.7 million and the sole director received a personal penalty of AUD 1.6 million. Some penalties may be used to repay workers, as the companies are now in liquidation. Notably, the director and one of the companies had previously been penalised for similar conduct.
Additional breaches included unlawful "cashback" schemes that forced 20 employees on 457 visas to return part of their wages. The companies also falsified records to hide their misconduct.
Due to the deliberate and systemic nature of the breaches, many were classified as ‘serious contraventions', attracting heightened penalties. Justice Anna Katzmann stressed the importance of sending a strong deterrent message to employers.
While this case predates the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023, it reflects the increasing seriousness with which such offences are treated. Under the new laws, intentional wage underpayment is now a criminal offence.