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

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll