Hosting HRi’s recent webinar on unfair dismissal reform, a few things stood out.

Not just because the proposed changes are significant, but because of what they are likely to expose in practice. As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that this is not only about legal reform. It is about scrutiny. About how decisions are reached. About whether process holds up when looked at more closely.

For independent HR consultants, that feels particularly relevant.

The proposed move to unfair dismissal protection after six months’ service, alongside the removal of the current compensation cap, will understandably attract attention. But the more important shift may be what these changes bring into sharper focus: the quality of decision-making, the discipline of process, and the professional judgement behind it.

Those are not new concerns. But they may soon carry more weight.

 

Less room for drift

One of the clearest themes from the session on unfair dismissal reform is timing.

Many organisations have grown used to having a relatively long window in which to assess performance, fit and conduct before unfair dismissal rights become a live issue. That has shaped behaviour, even where no one would describe it that way. Concerns are noted but not always addressed. Probation meetings slip. Managers assume there is still time to come back to something later.

A shorter window changes that.

What matters here is not just speed, but intention. Six months can pass quickly, especially where someone is still settling into a role, where expectations have not been clearly defined, or where managers are reluctant to raise concerns early. In those situations, it is easy for process to drift without anyone quite noticing until it matters.

That is likely to become harder to ignore.

For independent HR consultants, this may mean more time spent helping clients move from vague unease to clearer, earlier decision-making. Not because every issue needs to become formal at the first sign of difficulty, but because delay itself may become more consequential.

 

Informality becomes more visible

Another strong thread running through the webinar was how exposed informal practice can become when scrutiny increases.

In many organisations, especially smaller ones, people processes are often handled with good intentions but limited structure. Expectations are implied rather than clearly set out. Concerns are mentioned in conversation but not followed through. Review points are planned, then missed. Decisions are made on the basis of a feeling that someone is not quite right, without the supporting process to show how that conclusion was reached.

None of this is unusual.

What may change is how sustainable that becomes.

Independent HR consultants are often brought in when a client has already reached a view and wants help taking it forward. The challenge, in those moments, is that the issue is not always the conclusion itself. It is the absence of a process around it. Weak documentation, inconsistent handling, limited evidence of expectations being made clear, and very little to show that someone has had a fair opportunity to improve.

That is where the pressure points are likely to show up.

 

Judgement still matters, but so does being able to show it

The session also reinforced something that sits at the heart of good HR practice more broadly. These changes do not remove the need for judgement. If anything, they make it more visible.

It is easy to respond to legal reform by focusing on process alone. More forms. More meetings. More warnings. But process on its own is not enough. The real issue is whether decisions are fair, reasonable and capable of explanation.

That calls for judgement.

Not judgement in the sense of instinct or personal confidence, but judgement that is structured, evidenced and proportionate. Judgement that can show why concerns were raised when they were, how expectations were communicated, what support was considered, and why a particular course of action was thought to be reasonable in the circumstances.

The underlying legal tests and expectations around fair process, including those set out in the ACAS Code, remain unchanged.

This becomes especially important in the more difficult cases. Where sickness absence interrupts a capability process. Where a grievance is raised part-way through. Where there may be an underlying health issue. Where the line between conduct and capability is not straightforward.

These situations are not edge cases. They are part of everyday practice. What the webinar highlighted is that they are unlikely to reward rushed thinking, however strong the pressure to resolve them quickly.

 

Managers are closer to the issue than policies are

Another point that surfaced, perhaps more quietly, was the role of managers.

It is tempting to see reforms like this mainly through the lens of contracts and policies. Those things do matter, and many organisations will need to review them. But in practice, much of the risk sits earlier than that.

It sits in whether managers are clear about expectations. Whether they are noticing issues early enough. Whether review conversations are actually taking place. Whether performance concerns are being handled consistently. Whether they understand the difference between someone who is struggling to do the job and someone who is choosing not to do it.

For consultants, that matters because policy can only carry so much weight on its own. A revised probation clause will not help if no one uses the period properly. A capability policy will not solve much if managers do not have the confidence or discipline to apply it well.

So while the legal changes may prompt updates to contracts and procedures, the wider implication may be a need for stronger management practice too.

 

A different kind of support

There is, of course, a risk story here. More claims. Longer exposure. Greater potential liability in some cases.

As more employees gain the right to bring unfair dismissal claims earlier in their employment, the margin for error in how decisions are handled is likely to narrow.

But that is not the only story.

There is also a practice story. One in which clients may need more support not simply because the law is changing, but because weaker ways of managing people issues become harder to rely on. The value of independent HR, in that context, is not just in helping clients avoid mistakes. It is in helping them think more clearly, deal with concerns earlier, and apply fair process with more consistency and confidence.

There is also a potential cultural impact here. As decisions are brought forward, there is a risk that some organisations move more quickly to dismissal rather than allowing time for improvement, particularly where the cost of getting it wrong feels higher.

That feels very much in keeping with the wider direction of practice at the moment.

Not just knowing the rule, but being able to apply sound judgement under pressure. Not just reaching a decision, but being able to stand behind how it was reached.

As unfair dismissal reform in the UK moves closer, the way decisions are handled is likely to come under greater pressure.

This article reflects only part of the discussion from HRi’s recent webinar on unfair dismissal reform, delivered in partnership with Freeths LLP.

 

Author: Mary Asante