The Employment Rights Bill is likely to pass into law by the end of the year (depending on the ongoing interplay between the Houses of Commons and Lords over amendments from the Upper House).
While significant aspects of the Bill have received widespread acceptance, there remains a substantial degree of controversy over key details of the primary legislation, for example round ‘day one’ rights and the balance between probation periods and unfair dismissal provisions, and the proposed restrictions on zero hours contracts.
Other major provisions, including the exact nature of regulations relating to ‘fire and rehire’ and how these may impact on employers’ ability to implement changes, and trade union rights of access to recruit and represent, as well as the provision of bereavement leave and rights for pregnant workers, will be the subject of detailed consultation going forward for subsequent secondary legislation, regulation and codes of practice.
Many in the business community feel that while they had access to the Department to make their case on proposals, their voices carried little weight against the commitments made pre-election to the trade union movement and the consequent rapid early introduction of such a portmanteau piece of legislation.
On the other hand, the trade union movement believes overwhelmingly that the fundamental aim of the Bill is to bring employer practice and behaviour up to the level of the best that already exists.It will be critical for the successful implementation of the details of the Bill that engagement with stakeholders going forward enables a better understanding on all sides of the practical implications of what is being proposed.
In my view that must entail better, detailed dialogue and direct engagement between business and the union movement. There needs to be better recognition on both sides of the potential consequences of some of the policy changes, and their impact. Having skilled and dedicated civil servants hold the ring and essentially try to adjudicate between business and trade union views runs the risk of satisfying neither.
There is a good precedent for this social partnership approach to detailed policy implementation in the way the last Labour Government carried through ground-breaking and at the time controversial measures. For example, in 1997 the minimum wage and trade union recognition were absolute government priorities, but their introduction was agreed in detail by getting the TUC and the CBI come to an agreement on implementation. The same approach was adopted with other contentious pieces of employment legislation including information and consultation and working time arrangements.
At the moment, the business community and employers are currently heads down, assessing and understanding the implications of the ERB.
But there is a danger that they may fail to see the wood for the trees.
In my view it would be a mistake for employers to simply focus on the Bill through a legal lens. While it is possible that Christmas has come early for employment lawyers, going forward relationships in the workplace will be just as important in determining the impact of much of the legislation.
Whatever the challenges, ultimately the impact of new policies and implementation in the workplace will require a profound degree of engagement with employees, and with trade unions.
However, the CIPD is just one organisation to have identified an atrophying in industrial relations skills within workplaces, unsurprising given the years when trade union relations have been on the back burner. How then are these new provisions going to be managed at workplace level?
Employers need to start thinking now about how handle industrial relations going forward. That must include reviewing their arrangements for listening to and responding to employee voices – individual and collective.
This will be helped enormously by the government sending clear signals about what good industrial relations at organisational level should look like. What kind of collective engagement at workplace level will deliver the collaboration needed for all parts of the economy to play their part in national renewal?
When it comes down to it, what model of industrial relations will support growth?
Building a consensus around a positive model of industrial relations will be a vital underpinning for the successful delivery of the ERB going forward, as ACAS (itself a model for effective social partnership) has argued
It is encouraging that CIPD’s Spring 2025 Labour Market Survey found that the majority of employers agree that ‘working in partnership with the trade unions can benefit the organisation’. The benefits identified from working with employee representatives included ‘offering an independent voice channel to raise concerns with management’, ‘keeping the workforce well-informed’ and ‘early warning signs of problems or fewer workplace disputes’.
The IPA has always argued for a collaborative, partnership-based approach at workplace level, whereby unions and employers are jointly committed to the success of the enterprise and can work together to understand challenges and identify the best ways forward.
At this moment of opportunity for a rethink of positive industrial relations, we will continue to make the case with all the vigour at our command!
Nita Clarke OBE, director IPA
October 2025
More about how IPA can support organisations to strengthen their employment relations here.