The Employment Rights Act 2025: What resourcing needs to fix now

For resourcing leaders, this goes beyond procedural tweaks. It forces a rethink of how work is resourced in the first place. How demand is forecast. How roles are designed. And how much uncertainty is pushed into the hiring process rather than absorbed later through churn, dismissals or contract changes.

Many of the practices now under scrutiny, including fire and rehire, were not driven by bad faith. They were driven by operational pressure. Employers used flexibility in employment law to absorb demand volatility, cost constraints and mis forecast hiring. The Bill closes off that flexibility. As a result, workforce stability, job realism and demand accuracy now have to be built into recruitment decisions upfront rather than corrected later through churn, dismissals or contract changes.

This article explains why the Bill exists, what recent cases have exposed, and what needs reviewing now to reduce risk before the first contract is signed.

Why the Employment Rights Bill needs an overhaul

The UK Employment Rights Bill brings statutory protections into the earliest stages of work. The core framework it amends was shaped in the mid to late 1990s, when permanent employment dominated and large scale volume hiring was limited to a narrow set of sectors.

The labour market has shifted significantly since then.

In the late 1990s, over 70 percent of UK workers were employed in full time permanent roles, with high volume hiring largely concentrated in retail and public services. Today, a substantial proportion of annual hiring volume is concentrated in frontline, operational and entry level roles characterised by high turnover, variable hours and seasonal demand. Retail, hospitality, logistics, care and contact centres now account for the majority of annual hiring activity, even if they do not represent the majority of total employment stock.

ONS data shows employee churn has more than doubled since the late 1990s. The number of short tenure roles under one year has increased sharply alongside the growth of flexible contracts, agency labour and large scale workforce scaling. Zero hours contracts were statistically negligible in the 1990s. Today, over one million UK workers are engaged on them at any given time.

The employment system has changed. The legal framework largely has not.

That mismatch is now being addressed, and for resourcing leaders the impact is immediate. Recruitment decisions will carry legal weight far earlier in the employee lifecycle. Informal probationary exits, expectation gaps and role ambiguity move from operational issues to legal exposure.

This explains why the Bill divides opinion. Worker protection groups frame it as overdue reform. Employers running large, fast moving workforces see increased cost, reduced flexibility and higher litigation risk, particularly in sectors built on seasonal demand and rapid attrition.

Resourcing teams sit at the front of that risk.

In the news: where workplace practice has outpaced regulation

Recent high profile cases have exposed grey areas in UK employment law. Situations where employer actions were technically possible but widely seen as unfair. These flashpoints are shaping why regulation is being tightened.

P&O sacked 780 workers with no notice or consultation

Rockstar firing union-organising workers

Tetrosyl fire and rehire process 

Why the Employment Rights Bill changes recruitment risk

The most significant shift is timing. Statutory rights and protections attach earlier, while employment tribunal claim windows extend further. The distance between hiring activity and legal accountability narrows.

For high-volume recruitment, this matters because:

• Short tenure no longer equals low risk
• Early dismissal decisions require stronger justification
• Inconsistent role messaging becomes legally relevant
• Evidence of role understanding matters more than intent

Recruitment models optimised for speed rather than accuracy become fragile under scrutiny.

ERB implementation timeline

Date	Legislative change	Practical implication for TA
April 2026	Statutory sick pay expanded. Day-one paid family leave rights. Increased collective redundancy awards	Higher early-tenure cost exposure. Start-date forecasting and workforce planning require greater precision
October 2026	Fire-and-rehire restrictions. Stronger sexual harassment prevention duties. Mandatory union rights communication and access. Tribunal claim window extended to six months	Recruitment messaging, onboarding content and site-level consistency become compliance risks
2027 expected	Unfair dismissal qualifying period reduced to six months. Zero-hours contract restrictions. Mandatory gender pay gap and menopause action plans. Expanded flexible working rights	Early exits become contestable. Role design and expectation setting require defensible structure

Why high-volume and seasonal hiring feels the strain

The Employment Rights Bill creates friction with established volume hiring models by shifting legal risk earlier in the hiring cycle. Early hiring decisions now carry greater exposure, even where formal qualifying thresholds have not yet changed. Forecasting, workforce planning and hiring models need to assume that short tenure exits may be challenged.

This matters most in sectors built on rapid intake and flexible engagement. 

• Retail and hospitality rely on fast hiring followed by short periods of employment.
• Logistics scales aggressively around peak demand and contracts just as quickly. 
• Entry level roles often use probationary churn as a way to filter for fit.

Under the Bill, these patterns require stronger justification. Ending employment early because the role or working reality was misunderstood becomes harder to defend. Zero hours reform adds further pressure by tightening expectations around availability, predictability and consent.

Flexible hiring remains possible. The evidential bar is simply higher.

Improving hiring accuracy before rights attach

Assessment design becomes operationally important.

High-volume hiring fails most often through misalignment rather than misconduct. Candidates leave early because the pace, environment, workload or conditions differ from expectations.

Improving accuracy before hire reduces downstream risk.

Realistic Job Assessments contribute by exposing candidates to the actual conditions of the role before offer. They allow candidates to opt out when the work does not match their expectations. They create a record that the role was experienced, not merely described.

That record matters when early exits are challenged.

RJAs support evidence that the candidate entered the role with informed consent of the realities of the role. 

Risk, impact and required TA changes

ERB risk area	Impact on high-volume hiring	Required TA update
Earlier unfair dismissal rights	Higher challenge risk from short tenure exits	Stronger expectation setting and documented role exposure
Fire-and-rehire restrictions	Reduced scope to correct misalignment post-hire	More accurate role definition before offer
Zero-hours constraints	Less tolerance for vague availability	Clear signalling of work patterns and variability
Extended tribunal windows	Longer evidence retention	Assessments and messaging designed for auditability
Sexual harassment prevention duties	Liability from day one	Early behavioural screening and scenario exposure
Union access requirements	Inconsistent site messaging becomes risky	Standardised recruitment and onboarding inputs
Higher redundancy costs	Poor fit becomes more expensive	Fewer starts, higher readiness at hire

What resourcing leaders should do in 2026

Most resourcing teams will require tighter role definition, consistent messaging and assessment methods that prioritise accuracy over volume. 

Evidence generation matters. 

Audit trails matter. 

Candidate understanding matters.

Realistic Job Assessments help when used for the right purpose: improving hiring accuracy and documenting informed entry into the role.

They reduce mis-hire risk. They reduce early attrition. They support defensible decision-making.

The Employment Rights Bill raises the cost of getting hiring wrong early. The organisations that adapt fastest will not hire less. They will hire with better insight into demand, clearer role definition and more deliberate decision making.