Unfair dismissal reforms: Rethinking probationary periods

by Hannah Mason, Brightmine HR Data Insights Analyst

As unfair dismissal protections tighten, many organisations are now reaseessing how they operate their probationary periods. We explore how organisations are responding in light of the upcoming changes and what this means for probationary practices.

The reduction of the unfair dismissal qualifying period under the Employment Rights Act 2025 from two years to six months is prompting many organisations to rethink their approach to probation. With the changes coming into effect from 1 January 2027, HR needs to consider how their organisations will operate their probationary periods right now, focusing on not only the length of probation but also how probationary periods are used to manage performance, set expectations and minimise the risk of unfair dismissal claims.

Drawing on insights from HR professionals who attended the Brightmine webinar on the reforms to unfair dismissal, we assess how organisations are responding to the upcoming changes.

Current probationary practices

The majority of organisations currently have probationary periods of either three or six months, with three-fifths (59.6%) operating six-month periods and a further one-third (30.2%) operating a three-month period. However, a number of organisations cited longer periods, some of up to several years, for more senior staff or specific roles.

The vast majority of organisations that operate probationary periods have the option for managers to extend the length, if required. Three-fifths (59.8%) indicated that they are currently able to extend probationary periods beyond six months, and a further 37.9% stated that while they are able to extend probationary periods, they cannot extend beyond six months.

A small number of organisations go considerably further by operating lengthy probationary periods and extension periods. While this may suit their current approach to performance management, such arrangements may need to be revisited in light of changes to the unfair dismissal qualifying period, as reflected in the following example from one respondent.

One HR professional shared that in their experience extensions rarely change the outcome and so their organisation has opted not to have the option of extending the probationary period.

However, the success of an extension can depend on a range of factors, including the type of role, the onboarding process and individual responsiveness to feedback. For example, it may be easier and quicker to assess whether a new hire is suitable in entry-level roles, meaning there is often less benefit in extending probation. By contrast, professional or technical roles may take longer to assess, potentially requiring a longer adjustment and training period. In some cases, an extension may also be appropriate where onboarding or line management support has been limited, giving the employee a fair opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities.

Changes to probationary periods due to unfair dismissal changes

Some HR professionals shared that their organisation is reducing the length of the probationary period ahead of the unfair dismissal changes. Common changes reported include changing from a six-month probationary period to either three or four months. For example, one stated: “We have six months, reducing to three months from 1 July 2026.”

Organisations are not just adjusting the probationary period length, but many are also making changes to the ability to extend probationary periods. As an example, some HR professionals reported they will be opting for a four-month probationary period with the possibility of extending for one month. This indicates that many are thinking ahead and making sure their probationary periods allow enough time to follow a fair probationary period for employees, while ensuring the total length of probation, any extension and the notice period (in cases of dismissal) can all be carried out within the six-month window before an employee reaches the unfair dismissal qualifying period.

Setting expectations and managing performance during probation

While having a defined probationary period length can be important in maintaining a consistent and fair approach across new starters, there are other ways that probationary periods can be made more effective. One example of this is ensuring routine performance conversations are being had, so that concerns or performance issues are communicated throughout the probationary period. This allows a new starter the opportunity to make adjustments and understand expectations. One organisation shared that:

This highlights the importance of having a structured and proactive approach to managing performance during probation, rather than relying on a single end-point review.