Employment Rights Bill: Government amendment (a) in lieu of LA62

Wednesday, 5 November 2025 · Division No. 343 · Commons

311Ayes
152Noes
Passed

183 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Workers Rights(Yes)Pro Employment Regulation(Yes)Anti Business Regulation(No)Pro Youth Employment(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support the Labour government's employment rights provisions, including stronger unfair dismissal protections, rejecting Lords amendments that weakened the Bill

Voting No means

Oppose the government's approach, arguing stronger dismissal protections will deter employers from hiring young and new workers and harm job creation

What happened: The House of Commons voted on 5 November 2025 to pass a government replacement amendment to Lords Amendment 62 of the Employment Rights Bill, by 311 votes to 152. Lords Amendment 62 would have removed a clause retaining the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The government's substitute amendment, rather than simply accepting or rejecting the Lords position outright, requires the Secretary of State to consider the effects of introducing electronic balloting on voter turnout in industrial action ballots. The government's compromise position prevailed comfortably.

Why it matters: The vote concerns the rules governing when trade unions can legally call strikes. Under the current law, at least 50% of eligible union members must participate in a ballot for industrial action to be lawful. The Lords had sought to remove this threshold entirely. The government declined to go that far, instead proposing that any future introduction of electronic balloting, which could raise participation rates, must be assessed for its effect on turnout proportions. This preserves the threshold for now while signalling that it could be reviewed alongside modernisation of balloting methods. The outcome affects millions of unionised workers and their employers across the public and private sectors, bearing directly on the conditions under which strikes can occur.

The politics: Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of the government's position, joined by SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and most independent members. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted together against, with Reform UK's two present members also opposing. The Liberal Democrats argued for retaining the full 50% threshold without qualification, while Conservatives characterised the broader bill as damaging to employment and economic growth. The vote is part of a prolonged parliamentary back-and-forth on the Employment Rights Bill between the Commons and Lords, with several related divisions occurring in December 2025 suggesting the bill remained contested well into its passage.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
258 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/86 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/62 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
31 Aye/0 No
Independent
8 Aye/2 No
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
6 Aye/0 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Reform UK
0 Aye/2 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1 Aye/0 No
Your Party
1 Aye/0 No

What They Said in the Debate

Andrew Griffith

Conservative · Arundel and South Downs

Opposed

Opposed the Bill as rushed and half-baked, warning it will reduce youth hiring, create unemployment, and burden small businesses with compliance costs; called for meaningful compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal work, and guaranteed hours obligations.

Voted No

Sarah Olney

Liberal Democrat · Richmond Park

Neutral

Supported the Bill's aims but urged amendments to clarify probation periods, change guaranteed hours to a right-to-request model, and maintain the 50% ballot threshold; argued for balance between worker security and business flexibility.

Voted No

Kate Dearden

Labour · Halifax

Supportive

Defended rejecting Lords amendments on day-one unfair dismissal rights, guaranteed hours, and strike ballot thresholds; argued these are core manifesto commitments that will provide security and dignity for workers while supporting fair employers.

Voted Aye

Angela Rayner

Labour · Ashton-under-Lyne

Supportive

Passionately defended the Bill as delivering a new deal for working people, rejecting compromise amendments as attempts to water down manifesto promises; emphasized worker dignity and cited support from businesses like the Co-op and Richer Sounds.

Voted Aye

Justin Madders

Labour · Ellesmere Port and Bromborough

Supportive

Strongly opposed Lords amendments, particularly on zero-hours contracts and ballot thresholds; argued day-one unfair dismissal rights are essential and did not prevent probation periods; cited OECD evidence that employment regulation does not reduce employment.

Voted Aye

Ian Lavery

Labour · Blyth and Ashington

Supportive

Defended the Bill as a manifesto pledge voted for by millions; cited research showing 73% of employers support day-one unfair dismissal rights; challenged Opposition claims about union influence by noting trade union support is transparent and democratic.

Voted Aye

Andy McDonald

Labour · Middlesbrough and Thornaby East

Supportive

Strongly opposed all Lords amendments, arguing they would water down manifesto commitments on day-one rights, guaranteed hours, and ballot thresholds; framed the Bill as essential to raising living standards after 14 years of wage suppression.

Voted Aye

Antonia Bance

Labour · Tipton and Wednesbury

Supportive

Declared no concessions on the Bill; opposed political fund opt-in and ballot thresholds as undemocratic attacks on worker voice; committed to full repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016.

Voted Aye

Related Votes