• insights-banner

    In the Press

City AM quotes Dan Pollard on a number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill being rejected by the House of Lords

On 28 October 2025, The Employment Rights Bill failed to clear the final hurdle, as the House of Lords 'ping-ponged' it back to MPs for further debate over disputed points, including the controversial granting of ‘day one’ rights.

The highly contested Bill, which was a significant part of Labour’s manifesto, will see a major overhaul in the UK’s employment laws. It is currently in the final stage of the legislative route; however, the House of Lords has pushed back on several key points, including day-one rights, and forced it back to the Commons.

In the sitting, the Lords voted 302 to 159 to send their amendments to the zero-hour contract proposals back to the Commons, along with their amendments on day one unfair dismissal rights (301 to 153), and the Lords rejected the proposed lower thresholds required for industrial action by trade unions by 267 to 153.

Commenting on the developments, Dan Pollard, Partner in our Employment team, comments for City AM. He argues:

The solution here is staring the Government in the face. Why not give employees day one rights but allow employers to include a probationary period for up to 6 months?

"This reflects what many employers do in practice already. It also protects those employees who are hired from secure employment and allows them day-one rights if they do not agree to probation. This is consistent with the Labour Manifesto commitment and would likely strike a sensible compromise.

Read the full article in City AM here.

Our thinking

  • Blazing a Trail in Real Estate: Inspiring Female Leaders of the Future

    Georgina Muskett

    Events

  • Unpacking the Horizon IT Scandal: Ethical Decision‑Making in Conversation with Dr Karen Nokes

    Megan Paul

    Events

  • Understanding Vacant Possession: A Key Element in Property Transactions

    Emma Preece

    Insights

  • Year of the Horse Celebration

    Edith Lai

    Events

  • Martyn’s Law: What Historic Houses Need to Know

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Chandni Pandya contributes to an Estates Gazette Q&A on the modification of restrictive covenants

    Chandni Pandya

    In the Press

  • Navigating the Employment Rights Act 2025

    Ben Smith

    Events

  • Members of joint ventures cannot unilaterally bring adjudication proceedings on behalf of their joint venture

    Henry Dalton

    Insights

  • UAE Guidance to Employers

    Michael Powner

    Quick Reads

  • Understanding risk-based human rights due diligence

    Kerry Stares

    Insights

  • Residential PEEPs Breakfast Panel

    Richard Flenley

    Events

  • Commonhold: Best Supporting Tenure or Leading Role?

    Sarah Bradd

    Quick Reads

  • AI and Data Protection

    Victor Mound

    Insights

  • Can you divorce your parents in England and Wales?

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • Biodiversity Net Gain: VAT considerations for Land Managers

    Elizabeth Hughes

    Insights

  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Construction News quotes Francis Ho on John Lewis shelving its build-to-rent property plans

    Francis Ho

    In the Press

  • Michael Wells-Greco and Hannah Owen write for Today's Family Lawyer on a recent UK Supreme Court case that considers whether an adoption order can be set aside on welfare grounds

    Michael Wells-Greco

    In the Press

  • eprivateclient quotes Richard Honey and Charlotte Hill on how the Property (Digital Assets) Act in the UK is impacting private clients

    Charlotte Hill

    In the Press

  • Navigating ESG Regulatory Change in Supply Chain Contracts

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

Back to top