Recently, the UK government formally withdrew its plan to grant employees protection from unfair dismissal from their first day of employment under the Employment Rights Bill (ERB). Instead, ministers confirmed a new qualifying period — workers will only gain the right to challenge unfair dismissal after six months of service.
Under current law, an employee generally must have worked for at least two years before being eligible to claim “ordinary” unfair dismissal at a tribunal, though exceptions apply (for automatically unfair dismissals such as those involving discrimination, whistle‑blowing or other protected reasons).
The decision to adopt a six‑month qualifying period follows parliamentary debate, including pressure from peers in the House of Lords, business groups and trade unions — all concerned about the impact of a day‑one dismissal right on recruitment, business stability and small employers.
Expert reactions
Vicky Schollar, Head of Employment at Gardner Leader, said:
“In a dramatic turnaround the government has conceded to pressure from the House of Lords to drop unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment. Instead, the right will apply after six months. This is great news for employers, who now have a bit of breathing space to assess whether or not an employee is suitable for the role they have been employed to perform. However, employers will need to ensure that they have clear processes in place for monitoring and evaluating suitability over a relatively short period of time to minimise the risk of other day one claims such as discrimination.”
Claire Brook, Employment Law Partner at Aaron & Partners, added:
“Many businesses have raised concerns with us about the prospect of unfair dismissal protections applying from day one, so today’s compromise will be cautiously welcomed by many employers. However, the Government’s revised plans still introduce protection from unfair dismissal after just six months – a significant shift from the current two‑year qualifying period. Other day one rights, including parental leave and sick pay, also remain within the Employment Rights Bill.
The press release announcing this compromise also indicated that any further change to the qualifying period could only be made by primary legislation and that the compensation cap (currently set at the lower of one year’s pay or £118,223) will be lifted. We await further clarity in respect of this potentially significant development.
While the Bill has not yet passed, employers should use this window to prepare. Now is the time to review contracts, policies and procedures, audit existing practices, and seek advice to ensure they are ready for the changes once implemented.”
Claire Cole, senior solicitor at Harper James, commented:
“The government’s U‑turn on introducing day‑one unfair dismissal rights will come as a relief to many employers who were deeply concerned about the loss of flexibility in managing new hires. Moving to a six‑month qualifying period still represents a significant shift from the current two‑year position, and employers will need to prepare for a much earlier exposure to unfair dismissal claims.
While the change eases immediate fears, it also creates uncertainty. We still have no clarity on how any statutory ‘initial period’ will operate in practice, what procedures will be required, or how probationary dismissals will be treated. The direction of travel is clear – enhanced rights for workers much earlier in the employment relationship. Employers who prepare now will be best placed to adapt smoothly once the reforms take final shape.”
Craig Smith and Martin Walsh, law lecturers at the University of Salford, said:
“The government’s decision to revoke its initial proposal for day-one unfair dismissal rights is, in my view, a necessary and pragmatic correction. While politically contentious, the shift to a six‑month qualifying period reflects a far more realistic balance between protecting workers and ensuring that UK businesses retain the flexibility they need to operate competitively in global markets. The original pledge of day‑one protection was never sound policy. It might have appeared symbolically powerful, but in practice it risked generating hesitation and caution among employers, particularly smaller firms already grappling with economic uncertainty.
It is important to state clearly: you cannot weaken the employment rights of individuals who are never hired in the first place. If businesses perceive that taking on staff brings immediate and substantial litigation risk from day one, many will simply delay or reduce recruitment. A short qualifying period enables employers to take reasonable risks when hiring, knowing that they have sufficient time to assess performance, conduct, and suitability for the role. Far from undermining worker protections, the six‑month period actually increases the likelihood that individuals will enter the labour market at all.
Critics who claim this constitutes a betrayal of workers misunderstand the core dynamics of employment regulation. Rights must function within the economic realities that support job creation. Excessive rigidity at the point of entry does not empower workers; it restricts opportunities. The revised approach preserves the government’s wider package — day‑one sick pay and paternity rights — while adjusting an element that had the potential to stifle growth.”
The U‑turn by the government on “day-one” unfair dismissal rights under the Employment Rights Bill represents a significant recalibration: moving from a blanket first‑day protection to a modest six‑month qualifying period. For employers, this restores a degree of flexibility — albeit with their window for risk considerably shortened. For employees, it still marks a material shift, offering earlier access to protections than under the current two‑year rule, though falling short of the original promise.
Whether this compromise delivers a workable balance depends heavily on how the final legislation handles probationary “initial periods,” dismissal procedures, and compensation caps. Until those details are legally cemented, both employers and employees face a period of uncertainty.