House of Lords Reject Day One Unfair Dismissal Rights
Alan Kitto
In a major House of Lords vote last week, peers backed an amendment (Amendment 49) to the Employment Rights Bill, scrapping the proposed day‑one unfair dismissal right in favour of reinstating a qualifying period for tribunal claims. Under the amendment, employees would need six months’ service before being eligible to bring unfair dismissal claims—down from the current two-year requirement—without introducing a separate nine-month “initial employment” period.
Supporters argue this approach offers a clearer and more workable framework, avoids complexity in establishing a new statutory probation period, and mitigates pressure on employment tribunals. For employers, especially in sectors with flexible, high-turnover roles—like retail—the change has been welcomed by groups like the British Retail Consortium.
What This Means
Stronger employee protection sooner, without extending full rights from day one.
Simplified legal structure by dispensing with the nine-month initial employment concept.
For employers, a shorter buffer before claims can arise—impacting hiring and performance management practices
Will the Government Accept It?
The amendment directly contradicts a key Labour manifesto pledge to introduce full unfair dismissal rights from day one. Historically, under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords conventionally does not block manifesto‑based legislation: they may register concerns but ultimately allow the Bill to pass.
What’s likely?
The House of Commons, where the government holds a strong majority, is expected to reject the amendment and reinstate the original clause.
Lords may then choose to return the Bill unchanged or acquiesce—though standing their ground would be constitutionally unusual given government electoral mandate.