Employment Rights Bill: MPs reject Lords' amendments again

Parliamentary ping-pong resumed yesterday when the Employment Rights Bill returned to the House of Commons and MPs voted to reject peers' amendments on day-one unfair dismissal rights, zero-hours contracts and trade union ballot thresholds.

Five votes took place in the chamber, with MPs repeatedly backing the government's landmark reforms by a margin of approximately two-to-one.

Employment rights minister Kate Dearden reaffirmed the legislation's purpose, saying: "The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country."

She told the Commons: "Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust."

Guaranteed hours

One Lords amendment proposed a compromise on zero-hours contracts where, instead of giving employees the full right to request guaranteed hours, employers would have to notify workers of their right.

Dearden said: "It would undermine the Bill's core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most."

She emphasised that flexibility would remain for those who prefer it, noting: "Workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them."

Shadow Treasury secretary James Wild said: "Does the minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations?

"They say that what the government proposes will make young people - whom it is riskier to take on - less likely to get jobs in the first place.

"Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?"

Day-one rights

On day-one unfair dismissal rights, Wild challenged Dearden, citing the Resolution Foundation's criticism last week that a nine-month probationary period, rather than a six-month qualifying period suggested by the Lords, is a "messy compromise" that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on.

She had said: "These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one - not two years, not six months, but day one."

She said it was a clear pledge in Labour's manifesto that "will ensure that about nine million employees" who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired.

"Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason."

Another Lords amendment addressed concerns about seasonal employment, particularly in agriculture and hospitality. The government rejected it, pointing to existing mechanisms such as annualised hours contracts and limited-term contracts.

Dearden said: "A fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season… the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract."

Ballot thresholds

Turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, a Lords amendment aimed to retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots.

"The government do not support this amendment," said Dearden. "Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate.

"As the period of disruption under the Conservatives' watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This government's approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers."

Wild asked: "If this provision is introduced, does the minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?"

Dearden responded: "Strikes were a failure of the Tory government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working."

Amendment in lieu

But, in recognising that this issue has generated debate, the government tabled an amendment in lieu that "will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so".

Dearden said: "In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold."

Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith criticised the reforms: "It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced… it will create generation jobless." He warned of unintended consequences for vulnerable groups, including young people, the neurodiverse, and female returners.

In a rare moment of cross-party consensus, the government accepted a Lords amendment on the issue of 14 to 16-year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts praised the move: "Volunteering with heritage railways is an immensely useful experience for young people."

Dearden confirmed guidance would be published next year, offering clarity for youth engagement initiatives.

A committee, led by Dearden, will now communicate to peers the reasons for the Commons disagreeing with the Lords' amendments. The Employment Rights Bill returns to the Lords for further debate on 17 November.