header-logo header-logo

Day one rights: what happened?

251514
© Getty images
Was the promise actually delivered? Robert Hargreaves & Lily Johnston explain why employers must act now
  • The Employment Rights Act 2025 reduces the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months and abolishes the statutory cap on compensatory awards entirely. Both changes take effect on 1 January 2027.
  • Anyone hired from July 2026 onwards will acquire protection at the six-month mark, and the financial exposure attaching to unfair dismissal claims is fundamentally changed.

When we wrote in these pages in November 2025, the Employment Rights Bill’s headline promise was straightforward: unfair dismissal would become a day-one right, with a statutory ‘initial period of employment’ during which a lighter-touch process would apply (‘Day one rights: a new chapter?’ 175 NLJ 8141, pp11-12).

The Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) does not deliver that. Parliamentary events in the final weeks of the Bill’s passage produced a framework that is more modest in one respect and considerably more radical in another.

From promise to compromise

The original Bill, introduced in October 2024, proposed abolishing the two-year

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