Unfair Dismissal Across UK/AU/NZ/FR 2026

Unfair dismissal protection is one of the more divergent areas of employment law across major common-law and civil-law jurisdictions. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and France all have established unfair-dismissal frameworks, but the qualifying period, procedure, defenses, and remedies vary significantly. For multi-country employers and globally mobile employees, this comparison clarifies the 2026 state of the law.

Quick comparison

United Kingdom

Qualifying period. Under Employment Rights Act 1996, s.108, the right to claim unfair dismissal applies after 2 years of continuous employment. The Labour government has signalled intent to introduce day-one protection — verify current state of the Employment Rights Bill 2025 progress.

Fair reasons (s.98). Dismissal must be for one of:

• Capability or qualifications — performance or skill issues.
• Conduct — misconduct, gross misconduct.
• Redundancy — role no longer needed.
• Statutory restriction — continuing employment would be unlawful.
• Some other substantial reason (SOSR).

Procedural fairness. The dismissal must be procedurally fair under ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. Failure to follow the Code can increase compensation by up to 25%.

Forum. Employment Tribunal within 3 months less one day of effective date of termination.

Remedies.

• Reinstatement or re-engagement (rare).
• Basic award based on age and length of service.
• Compensatory award for lost wages, capped at £105,707 or 52 weeks’ pay, whichever is lower (current 2026 figure).

Source: Employment Rights Act 1996; ACAS guidance.

Australia

Qualifying period. Under Fair Work Act 2009, s.382, the right to claim unfair dismissal applies after:

• 6 months for non-small-business employers, OR
• 12 months for small business employers (under 15 employees).

Genuine redundancy exception. A dismissal that is a “genuine redundancy” under s.389 is excluded from unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

Threshold. Employee must be earning under the high-income threshold (currently AU$175,000) unless covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement.

Fair reasons. Dismissal must be for a valid reason related to capacity or conduct, with proper procedure including:

• Notice of the reason.
• Opportunity to respond.
• Support person available.
• Reasonable warnings for performance issues (where applicable).

Forum. Fair Work Commission (FWC) within 21 days of dismissal.

Remedies.

• Reinstatement (preferred where possible).
• Compensation capped at 26 weeks of pay, or 50% of the amount that would have been earned in the next 26 weeks.

Source: Fair Work Act 2009; FWC unfair dismissal guides.

New Zealand

Qualifying period. None. Since the abolition of the 90-day trial period for non-small businesses in 2018 and the re-extension to all employers in 2022, employees have personal grievance rights from day one — but with one exception:

90-day trial period. Under Employment Relations Act 2000, s.67A, employees in a properly executed 90-day trial period cannot bring an unjustified dismissal grievance. They can still bring discrimination, harassment, and other grievances.

Outside the 90-day trial: Personal grievance rights from day one.

Just cause and fair process. Under ERA s.103A, a dismissal must be:

• For a fair reason (capability, conduct, redundancy, etc.).
• Through a fair procedure — investigation, opportunity to respond, support person.

Personal grievance time limit. Under s.114, raise within 90 days of dismissal (12 months for sexual harassment).

Forum. Mediation Services first (typical 75% settle here), then Employment Relations Authority, then Employment Court.

Remedies. Under ERA s.123:

• Reinstatement (primary remedy in s.125).
• Reimbursement of lost wages (typical 3-12 months).
• Compensation for hurt and humiliation (typical NZ$10,000-NZ$30,000, awards above NZ$50,000 rare but possible).
• Penalties for breach of good faith.

Source: Employment Relations Act 2000.

France

Qualifying period. None. All employees have unfair dismissal protection from day one (subject to the trial period — période d’essai — which allows easier termination during the first 1-4 months).

Cause réelle et sérieuse (real and serious cause). Under Code du Travail, Article L1232-1, dismissal must be for a “real and serious cause”:

• Personal cause — performance, conduct.
• Economic cause — financial difficulties, technological change, reorganisation.

If no real and serious cause is found, the dismissal is without cause (sans cause réelle et sérieuse) and the employer faces compensation under the Macron Scale.

Procedural requirements. Detailed procedure required:

• Convocation à entretien préalable (preliminary meeting summons).
• Entretien préalable (preliminary meeting) — at least 5 working days after summons.
• Lettre de licenciement (dismissal letter) — at least 2 working days after the meeting.
• Justification in the dismissal letter.

Macron Scale (Loi Macron 2017). Compensation for unfair dismissal is capped per Code du Travail, Article L1235-3 based on tenure:

• 0 years: up to 1 month.
• 1 year: 1-2 months.
• 5 years: 3-6 months.
• 10 years: 3-10 months.
• 20 years: 3-15.5 months.
• 30+ years: 3-20 months.

These caps were upheld by the Cour de Cassation despite challenges that they violate ILO Convention 158.

Trial period (période d’essai). Under L1221-19, length depends on category:

• Cadre (executive): up to 4 months (renewable once).
• Agent de maîtrise: 3 months.
• Employé: 2 months.

During the trial period, dismissal is easier and the Macron Scale does not apply (subject to discrimination protections).

Forum. Conseil de Prud’hommes within 12 months of dismissal.

Source: Code du Travail Article L1232-1; Loi Macron 2017.

Comparison: when can you safely dismiss?

Within trial period:

• UK: 2 years protection — easy until then (subject to anti-discrimination from day one).
• Australia: 6/12 months — easy until then.
• NZ: 90-day trial only — easy with proper trial clause.
• France: 2-4 months trial — easier during trial.

After trial:

• All four countries: requires fair reason + fair procedure.

Procedural minimums

All four countries require:

• Notice of the reason for proposed dismissal.
• Opportunity to respond before decision.
• Support person / advisor during meetings.
• Documented reasons in writing.
• Reasonable time for the employee to consider their position.

Failure to follow procedure typically increases compensation 20-50% even where there is otherwise a valid reason.

Damages comparison

Dialogue: a multinational HR director plans dismissal

🐣 Chick: “We need to dismiss an underperformer in Sydney, London, Auckland, and Paris. Same playbook?”

🐮 Cow: “Same principles, different procedures.”

🦉 Owl: “London — within 2 years, simpler. Otherwise: capability process, ACAS Code, written warnings, performance plan, opportunity to improve, dismissal hearing.”

🐮 Cow: “Sydney — over 6 months, FWC jurisdiction. Document performance, give warnings, provide support, formal meeting with notice and reasons, consider redundancy alternatives.”

🐣 Chick: “Auckland?”

🦉 Owl: “From day one. ERA s.103A fair reason and fair procedure. Investigation, opportunity to respond, written reasons. 75% chance of mediation if challenged.”

🐮 Cow: “Paris — most rigorous. Convocation, entretien préalable 5 working days later, support person, lettre de licenciement 2 working days after meeting. Macron Scale caps the downside but procedural slips have severe cost.”

🦉 Owl: “And in all four — document, document, document. Most claims succeed on procedural failures, not substantive ones.”

Common mistakes

Treating performance issues as conduct. Performance issues require warnings, training, and improvement opportunities. Treating them as misconduct fast-tracks unfair dismissal claims.

Skipping investigation. All four jurisdictions require some form of investigation before disciplinary dismissal.

No support person / advisor. Most jurisdictions require offering a support person or right to representation.

Improper notice. UK and France have specific notice and timeline requirements. Australia has 21-day post-dismissal rule. NZ has 90-day grievance window.

Forgetting redundancy alternatives. When dismissing for redundancy, consider redeployment, retraining, and consultation with affected employees.

Inconsistent treatment. Disciplining one employee for conduct while overlooking similar conduct by another can support discrimination or unfair dismissal claims.

No documentation. Verbal warnings and undocumented meetings undermine the employer’s case.

Closing notes

Unfair dismissal frameworks across UK, Australia, New Zealand, and France share common elements (fair reason + fair procedure) but differ markedly in qualifying periods, damages caps, and procedural specifics. France is the most prescriptive (with rigid procedural steps). The UK has the longest qualifying period (2 years, pending reform). Australia’s 6-12 month threshold is intermediate. New Zealand offers protection from day one (subject to the 90-day trial provision).

For employers operating across these jurisdictions, the safest approach is substantive fair reason + procedural rigour above the local minimum. Documentation, written warnings, opportunities to respond, and clear records of decision-making protect against most claims regardless of jurisdiction.

A Gyoseishoshi (行政書士) prepares bilingual dismissal procedure templates and warning notice forms. Locally-qualified employment lawyers should advise on contested dismissals, especially redundancy structures and senior-executive terminations.

Create your dismissal compliance pack with Scrib🐮

¥22,000/month pass for unlimited access to all 18 document types across 7 countries. Start Free Preview →

Disclaimer

Legal information, not legal advice. MmowW Scrib🐮 is operated by a licensed Gyoseishoshi (行政書士) office in Japan. We are not UK solicitors, Australian lawyers, NZ employment specialists, or French avocats. For binding employment law advice, consult locally-qualified counsel in each jurisdiction.

Sources

• UK Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98 — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/98
• UK ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance — https://www.acas.org.uk/code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures
• Australia Fair Work Act 2009 s.382-385 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2024C00210
• Australia Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal — https://www.fwc.gov.au/issues-we-help/unfair-dismissal
• New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000, s.103A — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html
• France Code du Travail, L1232-1 et seq — https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006072050/LEGISCTA000006177833/
• France Conseil de Prud’hommes — https://www.justice.fr/themes/justice/conseil-prudhommes