Proposals to give new employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day of work have been rejected in the House of Lords. Peers voted by 304 to 160 to support a Conservative-led amendment that would instead reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months.
The rejected proposal had been included in the Employment Rights Bill, which aims to strengthen existing employment protections and introduce new measures across a range of areas, including flexible working, zero hours contracts and fire and rehire practices.
Peers did approve several other amendments to the draft legislation, including measures relating to guaranteed hours, shift cancellation notice, and time off for special constables. The Bill will return to the Commons for further consideration, with four days of Lords report stage scheduled – the next being Monday 21 July.
Critics of the original plan argue that introducing ‘day one’ rights without extensive employer consultation could create additional risks for HR teams and increase tribunal claims. The proposed six-month threshold would still greatly reduce the period an employee must work before being protected from unfair dismissal.
Calls for caution over pace of reform
Stephen Simpson, Content Manager for Employment Law and Compliance at Brightmine, said the vote marks a critical point in the Bill’s development.
“Yesterday’s rejection of the proposal to introduce ‘day one’ protection against unfair dismissal in favour of a six-month qualifying service requirement is a significant moment for the Employment Rights Bill,” he said. “It’s a timely reminder of the need to carefully consider the Bill’s impact on already stretched businesses.”
Simpson referred to data collected by Brightmine showing that 76.3 percent of HR professionals see day-one unfair dismissal rights as the most impactful proposed change in the draft legislation. In the Bill’s implementation roadmap, the introduction of day one protection from unfair dismissal was planned for its final stage in 2027.
“Under current rules, employers have more flexibility to manage underperforming staff within the first two years of service,” he said. “If the changes go ahead, companies will still use probation periods but would need to demonstrate a fair process from the start. This increases pressure on HR teams to juggle multiple moving parts, particularly if line managers fail to follow the right process.”
Votes on other reforms and amendments
During the report stage in the Lords, five divisions were held on proposed amendments. Peers voted to support an amendment that would allow employees to request guaranteed hours, instead of obliging employers to offer them.
A second approved amendment would exempt employers from paying employees for cancelled shifts if at least 48 hours’ notice is given. Peers also backed an amendment giving special constables the right to time off to perform police duties.
However, proposed amendments to introduce kinship care leave and employee protections from non-sexual third-party harassment were rejected by members and no changes were made.
Simpson warned that pushing forward with wide-ranging changes without adequate preparation risks damaging employer-employee relations. “The Lords’ rejection highlights the risks of introducing sweeping reforms within Labour’s first six months in office, without proper consultation with employers,” he said.
“HR teams are already under significant pressure, and the risk of a spike in tribunal claims is real if not handled with care.”
The Employment Rights Bill will continue its passage through Parliament over the coming weeks, with final provisions likely to be shaped by further debate and feedback from both chambers.
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
