Unfair dismissal: How good hiring, training and performance management processes reduce employer risk

Legislative change often prompts organisations to ask, “How exposed are we?”. That’s a reasonable question, particularly as unfair dismissal claims become easier to bring and potentially far more costly. But it’s rarely the most useful one.

In my experience, unfair dismissal claims are seldom caused by a single procedural slip. They are far more often the end point of a series of earlier moments: a rushed hire, ambiguous expectations, feedback that was softened or avoided, or performance issues that were acknowledged privately but never addressed properly.

Lowering the qualifying period to six months and removing the compensation cap doesn’t so much create new problems as amplify existing ones. Below we explore what employers can do to limit the possibility of these problems arising.

Getting hiring right when the safety net is smaller

When roles are hard to fill and pressure is high, recruitment decisions can drift towards capability on paper and availability in reality. What gets lost is a deeper conversation about how someone works, how they respond to challenge, and what support or stretch the role will actually demand.

Six months pass quickly. Where there is misalignment, organisations may find themselves managing difficult performance conversations almost as soon as trust is being built. At that point, leaders need to be confident that expectations were clear from the outset, not retrofitted once issues emerge.

Slowing hiring down slightly to be more explicit about standards, behaviours and pace can feel counterintuitive; however, in practice, it saves time, money and risk later on.

Probation as a leadership capability test

Probation shouldn’t be a waiting period; it’s an active phase that tests not just the individual, but the organisation’s ability to lead well.

In large, complex environments I’ve worked with thoughtfully handled probation periods become a powerful fairness mechanism. People know what’s expected, what’s going well, and what needs to change. Where it’s handled passively, uncertainty builds quickly for both sides.

In a more litigious climate, the temptation may be to tread carefully and say less. That tends to increase risk, not reduce it.

Performance management that doesn’t store up problems

Most leaders don’t avoid feedback because they don’t care. They avoid it because they’re unsure how to do it well, or they’re worried about the consequences of getting it wrong.

Yet the organisations facing the greatest exposure are often those where issues linger unspoken, only to surface when options have narrowed. When feedback is regular, specific and adult to adult, outcomes, even difficult ones, are rarely a shock. That sense of procedural and relational fairness matters far more than perfect documentation alone.

Culture as protection – and performance

Stronger hiring decisions, confident probation management and everyday performance conversations aren’t just about mitigating legal risk. They’re the foundations of healthier, higher performing cultures.

When people feel expectations are clear and conversations are honest, disputes are less likely to escalate. And when they do, organisations are on far firmer ground – legally and ethically.

The changes ahead may well increase claims, but the organisations least derailed by them will be those that invested early in leadership capability and cultural clarity, rather than relying on processes to rescue them later.