Plans to give workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day in a job have been abandoned, trade union sources say.
The legal protection, promised in Labour’s general election manifesto, will now begin after six months’ continuous service. Ministers confirmed the change as part of a revised Employment Rights Bill, which also includes day-one sick pay and paternity leave due to come into force in April 2026.
Business groups feared that day-one access to tribunals for unfair dismissal would damage hiring confidence. Employer representatives argued that organisations must be able to assess new recruits without immediate legal exposure. Union leaders wanted full access from the start of employment and have warned against weakening commitments to working people.
The government maintains that the bill will still deliver substantial reform. Other planned day-one rights to receive statutory sick pay and paternity leave remain in place and are expected to take effect in April 2026.
New balance between flexibility and protection
Under current law, employees must work for two years before gaining the right to challenge most dismissals as unfair. Employers must demonstrate a fair reason for dismissal and show that they acted reasonably based on the circumstances of the case.
The original Employment Rights Bill would have abolished that two-year qualifying period entirely. Ministers initially planned to replace it with a consistent legal probation process that would set clear expectations for both sides. Labour had presented the proposal as a core promise to improve job security and give working people greater confidence in the labour market.
The revised plan offers earlier access to protection than the existing system but leaves a gap in the initial months of employment. Workers moving between sectors or industries may still face a period of uncertainty at a time when rising living costs and insecure work are shaping career decisions.
Employers prepare for tribunal pressures
Law firms that specialise in employment disputes expect a noticeable effect on claims. Payne Hicks Beach, which advises businesses and senior executives, noted that employers would welcome the change from the original proposal. James Townsend, an employment partner at the firm, told HRreview that many companies still worry about the scope of other reforms.
“The government’s U-turn from promising day-one rights for ordinary unfair dismissal, to simply reducing the current qualifying period to six months is welcome,” he said. “There’s still time for ministers to rethink and scale back other measures, particularly those that will significantly expand union power.”
Concerns extend beyond unfair dismissal, however. The bill contains provisions that could expand union consultation rights and introduce new penalties for breaches of labour standards. Organisations are seeking clarity on both process and timescales so that internal policies can be updated in advance.
Michelmores, a national law firm advising employers across the UK, questioned whether full day-one protection was ever deliverable. The firm has tracked the progress of the bill since its introduction and anticipated a reconsideration once the proposals met practical scrutiny. Jo Mackie, an employment partner at the firm, warned of significant strain on the tribunal system and noted the need for a workable probation structure.
“This is no surprise,” she told HRreview. “It was unwieldy and unworkable and we predicted this would happen as soon as it was launched. Probation periods are important for both employees and employers and the tribunals would really have struggled to keep up with the raft of new claims that would have arisen.”
Parliament and unions respond
The Trades Union Congress has focused attention on the remaining commitments in the bill, and views day-one sick pay as the most pressing improvement. Its concern is that further concessions in Parliament could weaken promises that many workers had been expecting.
Opposition MPs have framed the climbdown as a political defeat for the government at the hands of employer lobbying. They said that costly insecurity would continue to affect newer hires who may feel unable to speak up if treatment appears unfair. The government has rejected those criticisms and emphasised that the bill still expands rights earlier than any previous reform.
Ministers argue that the six-month threshold represents a responsible compromise that ensures legal protections progress without bringing hiring decisions to a standstill. HRreview understands that government advisers are monitoring business behaviour closely for evidence of any unintended barriers to recruitment or productivity.
Preparing HR teams and line managers
Employers are reviewing induction practices to ensure that performance standards are fair, well documented and clearly communicated, observers say. And, they point out, they are seeking reassurance that probationary reviews remain robust in demonstrating goodwill and genuine support for new starters.
Rob McKellar, legal services director at professional services firm Peninsula, told HRreview that the government’s retreat provided reassurance for companies. “After months of debate, employers finally have some clarity on how new unfair dismissal protection will work under the Employment Rights Bill,” he said.
“A six-month qualifying period is certainly not as onerous as day-one protection, but employers shouldn’t see this as a get-out clause.”
He said that “[g]overnment figures show that 6 million more people will have the ability to claim unfair dismissal once the six-month qualifying period is implemented, so employers will still need to prepare and adapt their processes to comply.”
And he added that “[a]s we’ve known since the bill’s introduction, probation periods, and effective management of those first few months of someone’s employment, will be even more crucial. The good news now is that employers know what they’re working with.”
The Employment Rights Bill is, meanwhile, expected to return to the House of Commons shortly. Ministers want Royal Assent as soon as possible so that both business and workers have certainty over the timetable for change. Government sources continue to present the reforms as a step toward more respectful employment relationships grounded in clearer expectations.
The move to a six-month threshold will be seen by supporters as pragmatic and by critics as a retreat. Its success will depend on whether it brings genuine fairness to the workplace without contributing to avoidable disputes.
