The UK’s employment landscape is changing significantly.
From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection will reduce from two years to six months under the Employment Rights Act 2025. The change will also apply to employees hired from 1 July 2026, who will have six months’ service by the implementation date.
The intention is clear: employees should have greater protection against unfair dismissal much earlier in their employment.
And I understand that argument.
But as an HR professional, I think there is another question worth asking:
Could increasing protection for people once they are employed unintentionally make employers more cautious about offering permanent employment in the first place?
I don’t think this question is being discussed enough.
What is actually changing?
Currently, employees generally need two years’ continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, although there are important exceptions where no qualifying period applies—for example, certain automatically unfair reasons for dismissal.
From 1 January 2027, that qualifying period will fall to six months.
The change does not mean that employers will be unable to dismiss someone during the first six months.
Nor does it mean that every dismissal will automatically result in a successful tribunal claim.
However, the change means that employers will need to be much more confident that their recruitment, probation and performance-management processes are robust.
The CIPD has highlighted that effective probation and early performance management will become increasingly important as the change approaches.
Why I understand the argument for the change
There is a strong case for giving employees greater protection.
Two years is a long time to work without ordinary unfair dismissal protection.
Someone can spend almost two years building a career, contributing to an organisation and becoming financially dependent on their job, while still having a relatively limited ability to challenge an unfair dismissal.
Reducing the qualifying period should give employees greater confidence that decisions about their employment need to be fair and properly managed.
It may also encourage employers to address performance and conduct issues earlier rather than allowing problems to drift.
And, importantly, good employers should already be making fair and evidence-based decisions about dismissal.
So perhaps the real impact of the legislation should be relatively limited for organisations that already have good HR practices.
But that brings me to my concern.
What happens when employers change their behaviour?
Employment legislation doesn’t operate in isolation.
Employers respond to risk.
And when the perceived risk of employing someone increases, employers may change how—and who—they recruit.
This is where I think the debate becomes much more complicated.
Historically, the UK’s two-year qualifying period created an interesting balance.
Employers could offer permanent employment, giving employees the security and benefits that come with it, while retaining a degree of flexibility during the first two years.
That didn’t mean employers could dismiss people for any reason. Employees still had protection against automatically unfair dismissal and discrimination from the outset.
But there was a degree of flexibility around ordinary unfair dismissal.
That flexibility arguably contributed to a labour market where people could move between permanent jobs relatively easily.
The new six-month qualifying period changes that balance.
And we are already seeing evidence that employers are thinking about how they will respond.
What does the CIPD data tell us?
The CIPD’s Winter 2025/26 Labour Market Outlook, based on a survey of 2,082 senior HR professionals and decision-makers, provides some important insight.
The findings are striking.
24%
of employers said they expect the reduction in the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months to result in fewer permanent hires.
That’s particularly significant because this figure relates specifically to the unfair dismissal reform—not the Employment Rights Act as a whole.
And the wider picture is even more interesting.
37% of employers said they plan to hire fewer permanent staff because of at least one of the Employment Rights Act’s key reforms.
The reforms included changes to unfair dismissal, Statutory Sick Pay, zero-hours contracts and trade union rights.
The CIPD warns that this could have an unintended consequence: greater reliance on temporary workers and self-employed contractors, potentially increasing employment insecurity rather than reducing it.
There are other concerns too.
74% of employers expect the Employment Rights Act to increase their employment costs.
And:
55% expect workplace conflict to increase because of at least one of the key reforms.
These figures don’t prove that the six-month rule will reduce permanent employment.
But they do demonstrate that employers are already considering how the changing legal environment may influence their recruitment decisions.
And I think we need to take that seriously.
Could stronger protection actually reduce job security?
This is where my own view comes in.
I support the principle of stronger protection against unfair dismissal.
But I don’t think job security starts when someone signs an employment contract.
It starts when an employer decides:
“Yes, we’re prepared to offer you a permanent job.”
If employers become significantly more cautious about permanent recruitment, we could end up with a paradox.
We could give employees more protection once they are employed, while simultaneously making some employers less willing to offer permanent employment.
That could result in more:
- fixed-term contracts;
- temporary employment;
- agency workers;
- contractor arrangements;
- lengthy recruitment processes;
- cautious selection decisions.
And that could disproportionately affect people who already find it harder to get onto the career ladder.
Someone changing career.
Someone returning after a career break.
Someone with limited experience.
Someone whose CV doesn’t perfectly match the job description but who could thrive with the right opportunity.
Permanent employment provides more than protection against dismissal.
It provides stability, income security, access to benefits, career development and the confidence to make longer-term financial decisions.
If permanent opportunities become harder to obtain, that’s a problem too.
But shouldn’t good employers simply manage performance properly?
Yes.
Absolutely.
And this is an important part of the conversation.
The answer shouldn’t be to maintain a two-year period simply because it makes dismissal easier.
Good employers should recruit carefully, set expectations clearly, use meaningful probation periods, provide feedback and address performance concerns promptly.
In fact, I think the six-month qualifying period could encourage some organisations to become better at performance management.
Instead of allowing an employee to struggle for months—or even years—before finally addressing the problem, managers may become more proactive.
That could be a very positive outcome.
The legislation could therefore encourage better management practices rather than simply creating more legal risk.
So, is this a good change?
I think it can be. But I’m not convinced we’ve yet answered the bigger question.
The objective of improving job security is a good one.
But employment policy should consider not only what employers should do, but how they are likely to behave in response to the new rules.
The CIPD’s research suggests that a significant proportion of employers are already considering reducing permanent recruitment.
That doesn’t mean the UK will suddenly stop offering permanent jobs.
It doesn’t mean the reform will fail.
And it certainly doesn’t mean employee protection should be abandoned.
But it does mean we should watch the consequences carefully.
What should employers do now?
For employers, the answer isn’t to panic.
It is to prepare.
Organisations should consider:
1. Review probation periods
A probation period needs to be meaningful rather than simply something included in the contract.
2. Improve early performance management
Concerns should be identified, discussed and documented early.
3. Train managers
Managers will increasingly need to understand how to give feedback, manage performance and have difficult conversations.
4. Review recruitment processes
Better recruitment decisions can reduce the likelihood of problems later.
5. Avoid becoming unnecessarily risk-averse
The worst possible response would be to stop offering permanent employment simply because the legal environment has changed.
My conclusion
I don’t believe the debate should be:
“Employees versus employers.”
Both need a functioning labour market.
Employees need protection.
Businesses need confidence to recruit.
And the UK needs people to feel able to move between jobs, take opportunities and build careers.
That’s why I think the success of this reform shouldn’t be measured solely by how many employees gain the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim after six months.
We should also ask:
Are people still finding it easy to obtain permanent employment?
Are employers still willing to take a chance on candidates who don’t have a perfect track record?
And is job mobility being strengthened—or unintentionally weakened?
For me, that’s the bigger question.
Job security isn’t only about making it harder to lose a job. It’s also about making it possible to get the next one.