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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll