This work explores the evolutionary dynamic exhibited by the trajectory of unfair dismissal law in Britain and Australia. A different comparative evolutionary dynamic is observed in the phase leading up to the enactment of a statutory unfair dismissal scheme and in the period subsequent to enactment. It is argued that the shared common law origin of the legal systems of Britain and Australia masks significant divergence in their respective labour law traditions. Whilst collective laissez-faire in Britain, and conciliation and arbitration in Australia both sought to secure industrial peace, these divergent traditions operated in a manner particular to their jurisdiction in constraining the evolution of a statutory unfair dismissal law. It was only when these traditions underwent severe economic, social and political challenges that they faced a crisis of legitimacy and new ideas for labour law were canvassed. Although occurring over twenty years apart, the breakdown of Britain’s and Australia’s labour law traditions saw the juridification of domestic labour law, with a central reform being the inception of a statutory right protecting against unfair dismissal. Despite emerging from divergent legal traditions and according to different timeframes, the trajectory of unfair dismissal law subsequent to its enactment was to converge upon a common theme of peeling back the statutory superstructure in favour of localised and alternative dispute resolution. Although these developments are diachronistic across the two jurisdictions, this evolutionary dynamic of divergence giving way to convergence is revealing of a high degree of path dependency as between the unfair dismissal laws of Britain and Australia.