Update on the Employment Rights Bill – Ping Pong Merrily On High?

On 17 November 2025, the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) was back in the House of Lords (for the third time) after the House of Commons rejected its proposals for amends.

Once again, the House of Lords (strongly) voted down the following remaining issues:

Right to guaranteed hours

The Lords originally proposed amends to make the right to guaranteed hours a "right to request" rather than a duty on employers to offer. The Commons rejected this. The Lords did not insist on their original amendment, but instead proposed an alternative – allowing workers who have been offered and have refused guaranteed hours to indicate that they do not wish to receive further offers. The Commons again disagreed without offering an alternative. This time, the Lords rejected the scheme as proposed by the Government in the ERB, since they continue to seek to amends so that workers can choose to opt-out of receiving guaranteed hours offers.

Unfair dismissal

The Lords originally amended the Bill to replace the Government’s proposal to abolish the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal with a reduction from two years to six months. The Commons disagreed, the Lords insisted on their original amendments. In response, the Commons proposed a series of alternative amendments to require the Government to consult “such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate” before making the first set of regulations relating to unfair dismissal. This time, the Lords rejected this aspect of the ERB as they still want a 6-month service requirement for unfair dismissal, rather than day one rights.

Seasonal work

The Lords originally amended the Bill to introduce a definition of seasonal work and require the Secretary of State to have regard to its specific characteristics and requirements. The Commons disagreed. The Lords did not insist on their original amendment but proposed an alternative amendment that still defines seasonal work and requires it to be taken into account, while also allowing the Secretary of State to amend the definition through regulations. In response, the Commons disagreed with the Lords alternative amendment, without suggesting a further alternative. This time, the Lords disagreed as they continue to push for a provision which requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations in relation to guaranteed hours, to have regard to the ‘specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work’.

Trade union political fund

The Lords originally amended the Bill to replace the clause allowing trade union members to opt out of political fund contributions with a requirement that members must opt in. The Commons disagreed. The Lords insisted on their original amendment. In response, the Commons proposed an alternative amendment to change the way the date on which an opt-out can come into effect is calculated where a member decides to opt out of contributions. This time, the Lords continue to disagree that union members should be automatically opted-in to a Union’s political fund.

Threshold for industrial action

The Lords originally amended the Bill to reinstate the requirement that at least 50% of eligible trade union members must vote in favour of industrial action. The Commons disagreed. The Lords insisted on their original amendment. In response, the Commons proposed an alternative amendment to require the Government to have regard to the impact of allowing non-postal voting in industrial action ballots before making regulations bringing the turnout threshold into effect. This time, the Lords rejected it on the basis that they continue to believe that the requirement that there is a turnout of at least 50% for ballots on industrial action should not be removed.

There are options for the Government to seek to force the ERB through notwithstanding the Lords continued rejections, should they choose to do so. But these setbacks demonstrate some real continuing challenge to the proposals which the Government needs to consider (against the backdrop of wider political and economic concerns) and this latest round of rejections look set to push Royal Assent to the other side of Christmas presenting a potential bump in the roadmap which was previously set out.  

Will the New Year bring some reflection and change or will the Government stick resolutely to their guns? We will keep you posted!