What ‘rejection’ means for employers under The Employment Rights Bill

MPs in the House of Commons decisively rejected most of the amendments proposed by the House of Lords to the Employment Rights Bill. In doing so, they reaffirmed the Government’s intention to preserve the core protections originally proposed – rather than dilute them.

This landmark parliamentary moment matters considerably for employers.

The rejection is more than a procedural victory for Government; it gives clearer shape to the legislative direction and offers a signal to organisations to act now.

Preserving ‘day-one’ unfair dismissal protections

Perhaps the most consequential amendment the Lords sought was to insert a six-month qualifying period before unfair dismissal rights could be claimed – essentially rolling back the proposed “day-one” protection.

MPs refused that move. This is a signal that the Government intends to make unfair dismissal rights effective from the start of employment (subject to limited carve-outs) as originally promised.

For employers, that means dismissal risk increases earlier in the employment relationship. The days when ‘outsourcing risk’ to probationary periods with impunity are effectively over.

Robust procedures, immediate documentation and fair processes will be more critical than ever from day one.

Firming up worker protections

Other amendments struck down include proposals to narrow the new obligations around zero- or low-hours contracts and to weaken whistleblower protections or the right to accompany at disciplinary hearings. The rejection also cements in principle the extension of rules voiding NDAs in harassment and discrimination cases.

This suggests Parliament is pushing for relatively strong protections – not just minimal tweaks.

Reduced uncertainty

By rejecting numerous Lords’ changes, MPs reduce some of the legislative ambiguity. Employers can now plan more confidently around the bill’s core contours, rather than contending with extreme swings in possible outcomes.

The Commons’ action sends a strong political signal: the Government is standing by its manifesto agenda for worker rights, and it is unwilling to make radical compromises.

This further cements the commitment to embedding a ‘pro-worker’ framework.

Key implications for employers

The rejection of amendments does not just reconfirm intent – it changes how employers should prepare.

1. Reassess probationary periods and dismissal policies

With day-one unfair dismissal protections likely to remain, employers must revisit the role and limits of probationary periods. Rather than relying on them as a safe ‘trial’ period, organisations will need to build in stronger procedural safeguards (notice, documentation, opportunities to address performance) from the outset. Dismissal decisions will be more exposed to challenge – even early on.

2. Audit contracts, zero-hours arrangements and request rights

Any workforce with zero- or low-hours contracts will be under closer scrutiny. The employer obligation to offer a guaranteed hours contract may not be ‘on request only’ so employers should assess whether their current contract templates and policies comply with potential new standards. The risks of under-structuring casual, agency or variable-hour work will increase.

3. Strengthen grievance, disciplinary, whistleblowing and NDA policies

Given that protections around accompaniment, whistleblowing and NDA restrictions are likely to be more robust, employers must revisit those policies now. Guidance, training and clarity will be needed to avoid inadvertent breaches. Employers should build ‘right to speak out’ cultures that safely accommodate internal reporting and ensure their NDA structures do not contravene the new prohibitions.

4. Prepare for more tribunals and litigation risk

Stronger rights for employees increase the risk of employment challenges. Employers should expect more claims, and should prepare for and forecast the financial, procedural and reputational impact.

Pre-emptive investment in documentation, early resolution strategies, mediation and insurance or alternative dispute resolution procedures will be essential.

5. Manage change, culture and risk

With many of the details yet to be fleshed out in secondary legislation, employers must manage the transition carefully. Planning for change, flexible adaptation and internal communications will be key. Organisations that adopt an employee-centred culture may convert legal compliance into a competitive advantage in talent attraction, retention and reputation.

6. The growing importance of legal expenses insurance

With dismissal rights extending from day one and stronger worker protections across contracts, NDAs and whistleblowing, the likelihood of disputes progressing to tribunal is set to rise.

Even well-intentioned employers may find themselves defending claims that are time-consuming and costly. Legal expenses insurance will therefore become an increasingly valuable safeguard, helping businesses cover the costs of defending employment claims and giving them access to expert legal advice from the outset.

For many organisations, particularly SMEs with limited in-house HR or legal resources, such protection could prove critical in navigating this new risk landscape.

A turning point for employers

The Commons’ rejection of the Lords’ amendments marks a pivotal turning point in the unfolding landscape of UK employment law.

It signals that the legislative wind is blowing toward tougher protections, not retrenchment. For employers, the window for reactive adjustment is narrowing – those that wait until the last moment will risk being overwhelmed and exposed.

Yet the challenge also presents opportunity.

Organisations that seize this moment to embed procedural rigour, fairness from day one and a culture of respectful transparency will be better placed not just to comply – but to thrive in a world of heightened worker expectations and tighter employment legislation.