The UK Government has dropped plans to introduce day one unfair dismissal rights and will instead move to a six month qualifying period, cutting the current two year threshold.

The Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo UK) has welcomed the decision, describing the move as a “pragmatic and balanced approach” that protects flexibility for employers while improving protection for workers.

For employers in power generation, nuclear and renewables, this still has serious implications.

Legal risk is being pulled right into the probation period, the part of the employment lifecycle that most organisations manage worst.

If you run a CCGT plant, a nuclear facility or a battery storage project, the question is no longer whether this change matters. It is how you prepare for it.

What the New Rules Actually Mean in Plain English

Under the Employment Rights Bill, the qualifying period before an employee can claim ordinary unfair dismissal will drop from two years to six months.

This represents a significant reduction.

Employees will still need to show six months of continuous service before they can bring an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.

Existing day one protections remain intact, including protection from discrimination, dismissal for pregnancy, whistleblowing and other automatically unfair reasons.

The Employment Rights Bill is still making its way through Parliament.

Details such as exact timing and implementation will depend on the final legislation and subsequent guidance from Acas and the Government.

What is clear is that employers cannot assume probation will be a risk free period.

Legal commentary also suggests the Government intends to remove or increase the cap on unfair dismissal compensation.

Currently, compensation is capped at the lower of one year’s pay or a statutory maximum.

If that cap is lifted or substantially raised, the financial exposure for employers in unfair dismissal cases will increase, particularly for higher earners such as senior engineers, project managers and operations leaders.

The combination of an earlier qualifying period and higher potential awards represents a significant change in the legislative landscape.

Why Six Months Is Still a Big Deal in Complex Technical Environments

In a typical office role, six months might feel like a reasonable window to assess competence and fit. In a biomass plant, a nuclear decommissioning project or an offshore wind O&M contract, the reality is more complex.

It often takes several months of real operations, outages or project phases to see if a new hire is genuinely competent, safe and a cultural fit.

A control room operator may look strong in the first eight weeks but struggle under pressure during an unplanned shutdown. A maintenance technician may tick every box on paper but fail to follow site procedures when left unsupervised.

A commissioning engineer may perform well during routine tasks but lack the problem solving skills required when equipment fails at 3am.

Many organisations still treat probation casually.

Objectives are vague. Feedback is informal. Documentation is poor or non existent.

Line managers assume they can quietly move someone on if it is not working out. That approach carries much more risk when the qualifying period for unfair dismissal drops from two years to six months and potential compensation increases.

Consider a typical scenario.

A power plant hires a C&I technician in January. The first two months are induction and shadowing. Month three involves working under supervision on planned maintenance. Month four includes some independent tasks but no major outages. Month five, the site experiences an unplanned trip and the new hire struggles with diagnostic work under pressure.

By month six, the operations manager knows this person is not the right fit, but there has been no formal performance management, no documented concerns and no structured review process.

Terminating employment at this point without a proper paper trail and a fair procedure creates exposure to an unfair dismissal claim.

The shift from two years to six months does not change the legal test for unfair dismissal.

Employers still need to show a potentially fair reason, such as capability or conduct, and demonstrate they acted reasonably.

What changes is timing.

Legal risk now arrives right in the middle of the probation period, when many employers are still figuring out whether a hire is working.

Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now

Law firms and business bodies are advising employers to review recruitment, onboarding and probation processes in light of the six month qualifying period.

Here are the key actions hiring managers and HR leaders should prioritise over the next six to twelve months.

Improve Role Scoping and Selection Up Front

The best way to reduce risk during probation is to hire better in the first place. That means defining roles with real clarity before you advertise.

What competencies and experience are genuinely non-negotiable?

What technical assessments or practical tests can you use during the interview process to screen out candidates who will not cope with the environment?

If you are recruiting for a safety critical role, what evidence do you need to see before making an offer?

Astute works with clients to define clearer specifications and improve shortlisting so that candidates who reach interview stage are a much closer match to what the role actually requires.

Reducing early attrition starts with better selection, not better exit strategies.

Treat Probation Like a Structured Project

Probation shouldn’t be a passive waiting period. It should be a structured process with clear milestones, regular reviews and documented evidence.

Set specific objectives for weeks one to four, weeks five to twelve and months four to six. Build in formal check ins with the line manager at each stage.

Make feedback direct and timely.

If performance or behaviour is not meeting expectations, document it and put a support plan in place.

If you decide to terminate employment during probation, you need to show the decision was fair and followed a reasonable process.

That is much easier to defend if you have a contemporaneous record of concerns, conversations and support offered.

Waiting until the final week of month six and then dismissing someone with no prior warning isn’t going to stand up well in a tribunal.

Align Contracts, Policies and HR Processes with the New Regime

Review your standard employment contracts and probation clauses.

Make sure notice periods, review timelines and termination procedures reflect the six month qualifying period.

Update your management guidance and HR policies so that line managers understand what is expected during probation and what documentation they need to produce.

Check that your HR systems can generate the right records.

If managers are supposed to complete formal probation reviews at set intervals, do you have a process to ensure that actually happens?

Do you have template forms and guidance to make it easy for them?

Train Line Managers on Performance Management and Fair Process

Many operational and technical managers in power, nuclear and renewables are excellent at running plants and projects but have limited experience of employment law and formal performance management.

They need practical training on how to set objectives, give constructive feedback, document concerns and manage difficult conversations during probation.

Make it clear that informal chats over coffee aren’t enough.

Performance issues need to be raised formally, recorded and followed up. Managers also need to understand that day one discrimination protections remain in place, so any decision to terminate during probation must be based on legitimate performance or conduct reasons, not on protected characteristics.

Work with Specialist Recruiters Who Understand Your Environment

A good recruiter does more than send CVs.

Astute helps clients reduce early failure by properly assessing cultural and environmental fit, not just technical skills.

We understand what it takes to succeed in a 24/7 CCGT plant, a nuclear outage or a wind farm O&M contract.

That means we can have honest conversations with candidates about what they are walking into, which reduces the risk of hiring someone who looks great on paper but cannot handle the reality.

We also help clients improve their onboarding and probation strategies so that new hires get the support and structure they need to succeed in the first six months.

That benefits everyone.

What This Means for Candidates

The move from two years to six months is a genuine improvement in protection for employees.

Workers will gain unfair dismissal rights much sooner, which offers greater security and reduces the risk of being dismissed arbitrarily during the early stages of employment.

That said, expectations in the first six months will rise.

Employers will take probation more seriously and will be looking for clear evidence that new hires are performing, learning and fitting into the team and the site culture. Candidates need to focus on demonstrating competence, asking for feedback and showing they can adapt quickly to the environment.

Working with a specialist recruiter like Astute can help. We make sure candidates understand the role, the site, the shift patterns and the culture before they accept an offer. That reduces the risk of nasty surprises in month two and makes it more likely that probation will be a success.

Astute’s View and How We Can Help

APSCo UK has described the six month compromise as a pragmatic and balanced approach, and from a policy perspective, that may be true.

It avoids the immediate cliff edge of day one rights while still improving protection for workers compared with the current two year rule.

From Astute’s perspective, the real message to employers is that the informal approach to probation and early performance management is no longer good enough.

Legal risk now sits inside the first six months, and potential compensation exposure is likely to increase.

Employers in power generation, nuclear, renewables and industrial O&M cannot afford to treat probation as a tick box exercise.

We work with hiring managers and HR teams to get ahead of this change.

That includes helping clients define clearer roles and expectations for the first six months, improving selection and shortlisting to reduce early mismatch, and advising on onboarding and probation structures that reduce the risk of costly exits.

If you’re responsible for hiring in a technically complex or safety critical environment, now is the time to review your probation strategy.

Speak to Astute to discuss how we can help you prepare for the new regime and build a more robust approach to early stage performance management.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the proposed changes to unfair dismissal law in the UK. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Employers should seek specialist legal advice on their specific circumstances and any decisions involving individual employment cases.