Unfair Dismissal Rights at 6 Months: Preparing Employers for the Employment Rights Bill

The proposed change was very onerous for employers and was one of the points that the House of Lords objected to which has led to the delay in the Bill being implemented. The proposal was such a significant change that it was effectively holding up the remainder of the Bill passing into law and so a compromise position has been adopted and now the qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights will change to a 6-month qualification period. This change in direction was announced on 27 November 2025 and at a very late stage in the proceedings.

It is important to note that the implementation roadmap has this as a 2027 change and so there is plenty of time to adjust to this and to get involved in the consultations and developments that follow. It is possible that the implementation timeline for this change may be accelerated now that some of the complications of the original proposal have been removed, such as the idea of the “light touch” probationary review, which is no longer part of the legislative changes.

There will be consultations that shape the overall impact assessment here but some of the obvious issues for employers from this change are as follows:

Increased Legal Risk and Tribunal Exposure

The government’s own impact assessment suggests a rise in tribunal claims and associated costs. The employment tribunal service is already creaking under the weight of the existing backlog of claims so this is not welcomed.

There is an interesting remedy point that arises if a “short service” employee raises an unfair dismissal claim close to their start date. An employer may legitimately argue that the individual had no reasonable expectation of long service and that the forward-looking tribunal compensation award should be minimised.

The practical reality may be that employers will presumably be helped by “short service” employees mitigating their loss and finding new employment after only recently securing employment. Contrast that with a person who has worked in the same business for 20 years who might more reasonably explain the difficulties in career transitioning as against a short server who has recently been job hunting.

The point here is that these short service claims may not be high value but of course they can still be cumbersome for employers to deal with.

Higher Compliance and Administrative Costs

Employers will need to tighten up dismissal procedures, even during probation, to ensure they are “fair” from an earlier start date. That will involve more robust documentation of performance, conduct, warnings, reviews, and investigations so there is an audit trail.

As line managers will be critical to handling probationary issues fairly, more training and oversight will likely be needed together with revising HR policies: existing probation, dismissal, and performance-management frameworks may need to be overhauled.

Stronger Need for Probation

Obviously, qualifying for unfair dismissal rights at 6 months’ service creates an obligation on the employer to better manage staff issues as they develop and almost immediately upon employment commencing.

Financial Costs

According to HR professionals, this reform could impose a substantial financial burden: the government’s own business-impact assessment estimates up to £5 billion a year in costs across companies. These costs largely come from increased administration, more litigation risk, and more rigorous HR processes. That figure was based on Day 1 rights but we can still expect significant additional costs even with this moderated position of 6 months’ qualifying service.

Mitigation Strategies Employers Can Use

Remembering this is a proposed 2027 change then the main action employers should take now is to monitor the consultation timeline and be prepared to adjust internal policies and strategy in a timely manner.

Given the risks, employers will likely need to take a number of proactive steps:

• Revise HR Policies & Contracts: Update employment contracts, probation clauses, and dismissal policies to reflect the new legal reality.
• Implement Structured Probation: Use formal milestones (e.g., 1 month, 3 months, 6 months) with documented performance reviews.
• Train Managers: Equip managers with skills to handle performance/conduct issues fairly and document appropriately.
• Improve Record-Keeping: Keep thorough records of all performance discussions, warnings, investigations, and outcomes.

Conclusion

The move to a six months’ qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights is a major shift: it fundamentally changes the risk calculus for employers around hiring and dismissals. It is a relatively easy concept for employers to understand and to adjust to and thankfully does not have the complications of the original proposed Day 1 Rights which may very well have tied up employers in more compliance and monitoring obligations and created heightened litigation risks.