The Employment Rights Bill, a flagship piece of legislation aimed at overhauling UK employment law, continues its journey through Parliament as the House of Lords insisted on several key amendments in its latest debate on the bill, which occurred on the 28th of October 2025. These changes have triggered parliamentary “ping pong,” with the Bill now returning to the House of Commons for further consideration.
Unfair dismissal: Lords stand firm on six-month qualifying period
One of the most contentious issues remains the right to protection from unfair dismissal. While the government has proposed “day one” rights for employees, the House of Lords has maintained its position that a six-month qualifying period should apply, defeating the Government’s proposal with a majority of 148. Peers argue this strikes a better balance between worker protection and employer flexibility, particularly for small businesses. The Commons previously rejected this amendment, but the Lords have sent it back for renewed debate.
Guaranteed hours: Opt-out amendment gains ground
In a significant shift, the Lords have revised their own amendment concerning guaranteed hours for zero-hours and low-hours workers. Under the new proposal, after the initial reference period and offer of guaranteed hours, employees would have the right to opt out of future reviews and offers. Importantly, they could opt back in at any time. This change, designed to preserve flexibility for workers who prefer variable hours, was passed by the Lords and has been sent back to the Commons to be considered by MPs.
Seasonal work: Special consideration proposed
Recognising the unique nature of seasonal employment, the Lords have also approved an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to give special regard to seasonal work when drafting regulations related to guaranteed hours. This aims to ensure that industries reliant on seasonal labour, such as agriculture and hospitality, are not unduly burdened by rigid contractual obligations.
Trade union political funds: Opt-in debate continues
Another area of disagreement involves trade union political funds. The Lords have stood by their amendment requiring new union members to actively opt in to contribute to political funds, rather than being automatically enrolled. This measure, originally introduced in the Trade Union Act 2016, is seen by some as a safeguard against involuntary political contributions. The government’s proposal to reverse this and return to an opt-out system has sparked criticism and will be revisited in the Commons.
Industrial action: Lords resist changes to ballot turnout rules
Finally, the Lords disagreed with the government’s plan to abolish the requirement for at least 50% turnout in ballots for industrial action. This threshold, introduced to ensure legitimacy in strike mandates, remains a point of contention. The Lords’ decision to retain it reflects concerns about the potential for industrial action to proceed without broad member support. The Commons will now reconsider this provision.
What’s next?
The Bill’s passage remains uncertain as both Houses continue to negotiate its final form. The Bill will continue to “ping pong” between the two Houses until an agreement is reached. Whilst there is no time limit for this process, the Bill could fail if it runs out of time during this parliamentary session. The Bill cannot receive Royal Assent and become an Act of Parliament until agreement is reached, unless the Government chooses to operate the powers granted to it by the Parliament Acts to pass the bill in the following parliamentary session. The debate continues.
About the author
Karen Cole is a Partner and Head of the Employment team at RIAA Barker Gillette. She has a range of expertise based on her employment law, dispute resolution, and litigation background. Karen provides employment law advice to businesses and individuals, whether contentious or not. She is a member of the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) and the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL).