header-logo header-logo

Day one rights: a new chapter?

237021
Robert Hargreaves & Lily Johnston report on the demise of the two-year rule & what this means for employers & advisers
  • The Employment Rights Bill 2024–25 abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection, giving every employee ‘day one rights’.
  • Employers must revise probation, capability and disciplinary procedures so that fairness applies from the first day of employment.
  • Litigation risk will move from eligibility disputes to the quality of process and evidence of reasonableness.

The Employment Rights Bill 2024–25 delivers the most far-reaching change to dismissal law since the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). By removing the two-year qualifying period, it draws every worker within the scope of unfair dismissal protection from day one.

For many, this corrects a long-criticised imbalance between flexibility and fairness. For others, it threatens to blur managerial discretion with judicial oversight. Whatever the view, it will transform how HR teams and employment lawyers approach dismissal decisions.

At present, s 108, ERA 1996 prevents most employees from bringing an unfair dismissal claim until they have two years’ continuous service.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll