The government has denied it has made a final decision on doubling the qualifying period for employees to bring an unfair dismissal claim from one to two years, despite the publication of an official report that said the move was imminent.

Fees for filing employment tribunal cases were also set to be introduced, according to this week’s One-in, One-out deregulation document from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

However BIS has now claimed that this was “a drafting error” and the report will be re-issued.

“No final decision has been taken to increase the unfair dismissal qualifying period,” said a department spokesman.

In what appeared to be an informal announcement, the original report stated: “We are increasing the qualifying period for employees to be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years, and introducing fees for lodging employment tribunal cases to tackle vexatious claims.”

The coalition launched a consultation on implementing these proposals earlier in the year, but has not yet published its formal response to the consultation exercise.

Law firm Pannone described the decision admission as a “slip”, but one that would be “welcomed by employers.”

Meanwhile, unions have reacted furiously to the “quietly published” decision, and said it would not lead to the creation of more jobs.

“How will attacking workers’ ability to secure justice create one single job?” questioned Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite. “All it will do is create a hire and fire culture where bad employers cannot be challenged.

“When will this government understand that there is not a culture of ‘vexatious’ claims? Proper checks and balances are in place to root out those cases,” he added. “The vast majority of workers pursuing unfair dismissal are found to have valid claims.”

Law firm Eversheds warned that increasing the length of service required before an unfair dismissal claim could be lodged, might result in a new wave of complaints made on alternative grounds.

“Increasing the period may encourage new litigation, for example, to challenge its impact on women,” said Eversheds partner Simon Tytherleigh. “Employees may seek to circumvent the period by submitting tribunal complaints on other grounds, such as whistle-blowing and discrimination, for which the qualifying period does not apply.”