Common sense prevails: What the latest Employment Rights Bill means for employers

In our last commentary on the Employment Rights Bill, we warned that the shift to “day-one” unfair dismissal protection from an initial qualifying period created legal uncertainty, especially around what an “initial period of employment” might look like in practice.

That uncertainty risked imposing burdensome complexity on employers.

However, recent developments have brought more clarity and have given businesses something they can actually work with, which is welcome news as Head of Employment Law, Adrian Hoggarth, explains.

What has changed

Following extensive debate in the House of Lords, the Bill now proposes a reduced qualifying period for unfair dismissal of six months (down from the existing two-year requirement).

In doing so, the government has now dropped the plan for a separate statutory “probationary period” or “initial period of employment.”

As a result, there is no longer a need for extensive secondary legislation to define how the “initial period” would operate in practice, a key concern raised previously by employers’ representatives.

According to recent reporting, Angela Rayner MP plans to table an amendment when the Bill returns to the Commons on 8 December. The amendment would bring the six-month qualifying period into force in 2026 rather than 2027.

“In short, common sense has prevailed. The legislation now offers a simpler, more predictable framework for unfair dismissal rights than the “day one” unfair dismissal rights uncertainty debated in recent months,” commented Adrian.

What this means for employers

For employers large and small, this outcome should be welcomed. In practical terms it means:

• Greater clarity and less bureaucracy

Without a separate statutory “initial period,” HR teams and in-house counsel can avoid drafting complex probation period policies. The six-month qualifying rule mirrors many existing informal practices, making transition smoother.

• Manageable risk window

The six-month qualifying window is significantly narrower than the existing two-year threshold, but it still gives employers a reasonable window to assess new hires before full unfair-dismissal protections apply.

• No fragmentation of rights

Because the Bill dispenses with a separate probation regime, there is less risk of confusion about which rights apply and when, especially for dismissals and procedural fairness obligations.

• Lead-in time for planning

If the amendment succeeds and the change comes into force in 2026, employers will have a clear runway to review and update contracts, handbooks and onboarding/dismissal procedures.

However, employers should not become complacent, as Adrian explains:

“The new protections will still significantly strengthen employee rights compared with the current two-year rule. Dismissals after six months could be challenged as unfair.

“Employers will need to ensure that any dismissal, redundancy, or probationary exit decisions are underpinned by robust, fair, and well-documented processes.”

Why this compromise matters

When the Bill was first introduced, the prospect of “day-one” unfair-dismissal rights raised serious concerns among the business community – from a sudden increase in risk for probationary hires and potential deterrent effects on recruitment, to a much heavier compliance burden, especially for SMEs.

“By negotiating a six-month threshold and removing the need for a statutory probation period, Parliament has struck a balance which will deliver a meaningful improvement in workers’ rights whilst giving employers a sensible, predictable framework.

“Not only this, from a practical standpoint, the revised approach aligns with what many employers already do in practice anyway. However, it is far simpler in legal terms and administratively lighter for employers,” adds Adrian.

What employers should do now

• Review employment contracts and handbooks: Ensure that probation period clauses (if any) are re-examined in light of the new six-month qualifying rule.
• Audit dismissal and redundancy procedures: Check that processes for staff exit – including warnings, performance reviews and documentation – are robust, even for relatively new employees.
• Update onboarding and probation practices: Treat onboarding and probation (if used) as internal management tools and not as a legal shield against unfair dismissal risk.
• Communicate with line managers and HR: Ensure all relevant stakeholders understand that the “six-month rule” becomes the new minimum standard, and the old two-year threshold is no longer relevant for unfair dismissal claims once the Bill becomes law.

The transition from “day-one rights” to a six-month qualifying period represents a pragmatic and sensible compromise.

For employers, it restores legal certainty, reduces administrative complexity, and enables preparation with a realistic lead time. Meanwhile, for workers, it still represents a substantial improvement over the current two-year requirement. All told, common sense has prevailed.

Jurit LLP will continue to monitor developments as the Bill returns to the Commons on 8 December. We stand ready to advise clients on updating employment contracts, handbooks, and dismissal procedures once the final text is confirmed.

In the meantime, for help and support with your employment law needs, don’t hesitate to get in touch.