UK employment law June 2026: Unfair dismissal changes – understand six-month probation options

Final chance to check probation processes  

With the regulations made confirming that the unfair dismissal changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025 will take effect on 1 January 2027, the impending impact on recruitment probation periods is now here.  

While anyone recruited after 1 January 2027 will be able to claim unfair dismissal earlier than previously, from 1 July 2026, any new employee will have the right to claim unfair dismissal after just six months of employment, meaning they can make a claim from 1 January 2027.  

The CIPD's recruitment law page has been updated with four sections on probation to cover this change. These sections include considerations of the frameworks that are needed during probation, the fairness and clarity of the process, and the rules on notice, and extending any probation process beyond six months. CIPD members can access these sections on the recruitment law page.  

Positive result from media focus on sexual harassment  

In an interesting poll from Acas – one in four respondents believe that media coverage of sexual harassment is improving workplace culture.  

For people professionals this is a positive step and hopefully indicates that increased legal measures in this area are working. Please note that since 6 April 2026 reporting sexual harassment in the workplace has been explicitly covered in whistleblowing legislation as a protected disclosure. And as we move into October 2026, you can strengthen your processes as the ERA 2025 is set to require employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment from that date. 

Discrimination when preventing illegal working 

All UK employers must comply with the Code of practice on preventing illegal working. A recent consultation highlighted that the current Code does not explicitly address the risk of discrimination; for example, where right-to-work checks reveal a person’s nationality and this leads to unfair rejection. 

Just because the Code does not cover this does not mean such behaviour is lawful. It can still give rise to discrimination claims. However, making this risk explicit in the Code would encourage employers to take more proactive steps to prevent it. 

Employers should manage this risk now, there is no need to wait for updated statutory guidance, as liability for discrimination already exists. CIPD members can use the discrimination resources to prevent any risk in your organisation.  

Data protection complaints: New obligations from 19 June 2026 

A reminder that from 19 June 2026, individuals (which will include employees) have a right to complain directly to organisations about how their personal data has been handled. More information and support is available for CIPD members in our data protection resource. 

Spotlight on tribunal decisions 

Truth in Employment Tribunals

Damilare Ajao v Commerzbank AG and Others (2024) EAT highlights the risks of fabricated evidence. 

After his dismissal, Mr Ajao brought multiple tribunal claims, all of which were rejected. The tribunal found he had fabricated allegations and tampered with evidence. The bank then brought contempt proceedings in the High Court, which upheld 12 of 13 allegations to the criminal standard. 

The Court of Appeal largely upheld those findings, and Mr Ajao ultimately received an immediate custodial sentence of eight months. 

This case illustrates that dishonesty in tribunal proceedings can escalate into criminal contempt of court. Even seemingly minor alterations to contemporaneous evidence may carry serious risks. proceedings. Even minor ‘amends’ to contemporaneous evidence can apply here.  

As people professionals, if you are in the position where you may have to advise senior leadership or managers (or any other person in the organisation) about giving evidence, this case points to the following points:  

• base your evidence on what you can genuinely recall, or what is included in notes you made at the time (or shortly after the incident concerned),
• acknowledge any gaps in your recollections rather than trying to fill them with speculation,
• never alter contemporaneous documentation to try and ‘improve’ your position in view of what is in the claim against you or your organisation,
• when giving evidence in the tribunal hearing itself, only answer the questions asked and don’t speculate. The consequences of not telling the truth can be real and costly, both financially and in terms of personal reputation. 

Did you know that CIPD members benefit from an employment law helpline to support all aspects of employment law.  

Seconded workers and liability 

Bank Of Africa UK Plc and others v Hassani (2026) raises some practical indications arise for people professionals. 

In the case, a seconded worker raised regulatory and governance concerns. The relationship with the host organisation then broke down, and the worker brought whistleblowing detriment claims against the host. 

The result of the detailed EAT ruling on this case is that secondment does not reduce whistleblowing risk, it makes it more complex. Tribunals will closely examine the working relationship (what was happening in reality), and employers cannot rely on informal arrangements to shift legal responsibility. 

And for employers that use secondments, this highlights that unclear or poorly drafted arrangements create legal uncertainty and increase the risk of claims. 

Looking ahead, the ERA 2025 will further increase exposure as in October 2026 it is expected that employers may be required to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties (such as clients or customers), including where workers are operating on secondment. Follow the progress of this matter on the ERA 2025 tracker.