You're Fired! (and rehired)

There has been a lot of talk about dismissal and re-engagement (also known as “fire and rehire”) tactics lately.
We often advise employers who are looking to change employees’ terms and conditions. They could be looking to do this for a number of reasons, including economic circumstances or business reorganisation. We also advise employers on changing terms and conditions in the context of a TUPE transfer, but that is outside of the scope of this article.
If the terms you want to change are contractual, then you can face difficulties making changes if your employees are not in agreement. There are some options, but none are ideal:

If you go ahead and impose the changes, without the employees’ agreement, then the employees could resign and bring claims for constructive unfair dismissal. However, if an employee continues to work under the new changes without protest, then they could be found to have agreed to the changes.
You could look to ‘buy-off’ the changes by introducing them with some added benefit, such as a pay rise or bonus.
Alternatively, you could dismiss the employees who do not agree to the changes, but to reduce the risk of the employees bringing claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal, you should dismiss with notice (following consultation) and offer to rehire them immediately on the new terms. This is what has become known as fire and rehire.

With all options, where more than 20 employees are affected, you should engage in collective consultation (see our previous articles here and here ), otherwise you could be liable to pay a protective award of up to 90 days’ pay for each affected employee.
Fire and rehire is unpopular with many and, although such methods can be lawfully used in many cases, it is not without risk as Tesco recently found out.
The High Court recently granted an injunction , applied for by the trade union USDAW, preventing Tesco from firing staff and rehiring its employees on new terms.
Some years ago, when reorganising its distribution centres, Tesco negotiated “Retained Pay” for some of its warehouse operatives who agreed to relocate, as an alternative to redundancy. The Retained Pay was to remain for as long as the staff were employed in their current role and was described in communications to employees as being “guaranteed for life” and “permanent”.
Tesco announced in January 2021 that it was proposing to remove Retained Pay in return for a lump sum payment, and that if the employees did not agree they would be dismissed and offered re-engagement on new terms.
The union successfully obtained an injunction preventing Tesco from dismissing the affected employees.
Key to this particular case was that the Retained Pay was permanent for as long as the employee was employed by Tesco in their current role. The Court noted that Tesco could have put a longstop date on the entitlement to Retained Pay or made it clear that the entitlement to Retained Pay would only subsist for as long as the particular contract did, but they chose not to do so.
Although this was a rare and unusual case, the facts of which the Court described as “extreme”, the use of fire and rehire tactics has come under the spotlight recently, particularly due to the Covid pandemic (for example, “ British Airways faces strike threat over job cut plan ”, “ British Gas staff start five-day strike in 'fire and rehire' row ” and “ …Duke of Edinburgh’s Award using fire and rehire… ” ). In 2021, ACAS were asked by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to investigate fire and rehire practices. The government has said that it does not intend to legislate to curtail fire and re-hire, and a private member’s bill aimed at limiting fire and rehire practices was blocked in October 2021. ACAS published updated guidance in November 2021, which stated that firing and rehiring should only be used as a last resort.
As the Court highlighted, Tesco could still terminate the employees’ contracts for good cause (for example if they are genuinely redundant or committed gross misconduct), which would end their entitlement to Retained Pay. However, Tesco will have to tread carefully if they do dismiss any of the affected employees for good cause, as they will be under scrutiny in light of what has happened so far.
The Tesco case is unusual, however all employers considering using dismissal and re-engagement to force contractual changes should be aware of the risk of reputational damage if things are not handled properly, and the risk of dismissed employees bringing claims. We recommend employers take timely advice in any case where they are considering making changes to employees’ contractual terms.
If you would like any further information or want to discuss any of these issues then please contact the writer, Marianne Wright, via mw@kilgannonlaw.co.uk or on 0330 124 7811.
Kilgannon & Partners LLP is a specialist employment law firm where our experienced employment law partners offer practical, prompt and professional employment law and HR advice.
23rd February 2022. © Kilgannon & Partners LLP

< Older Post Newer Post >

A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

February 3, 2026

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

A person with long dark hair, wearing a green and orange patterned top, looks toward the camera against a black background.

Tribunal ruling puts ‘up or out’ employment policies under scrutiny

February 3, 2026

The appeal judgment criticised the original tribunal’s handling of both disability and justification issues. The judgment indicates that employers making dismissals based on assessment of readiness for promotion, without the employee having carried out the work for the role above, will struggle to show that decision is

A person smiling at the camera, wearing a green and orange patterned top against a dark, plain background.

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal

January 19, 2026

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Tribunal’s reasoning on disability discrimination due to endometriosis was “wholly inadequate” and the decision could not stand

Two hands wearing rainbow-colored bracelets come together to form a heart shape.

Non-binary identity does not give rise to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

December 18, 2025

A tribunal ruled non-binary identity does not amount to gender reassignment. Learn the legal reasoning and workplace implications with Kilgannon Law.

The Houses of Parliament in London at dusk, with the illuminated Elizabeth Tower reflected in the River Thames.

The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

December 11, 2025

A tribunal has held that the dismissal of a cleaner working two jobs and 17-hour days was fair. Learn why the decision was upheld, the key factors considered, and what this means for employers managing fatigue and safety risks.

Two people exchange documents across a desk in a bright office; one person smiles while receiving a paper.

Assurances by CEO bind Company to extend share options post-employment

December 10, 2025

Understand how employee share options work, the different types available, and their tax implications. Learn how share schemes can reward staff, attract talent, and support business growth.

Two professionals in business attire discuss work at a desk with a laptop and documents.

ACAS Early Conciliation: Why more time may not be the best healer

By Dominic Holmes • November 10, 2025

From 1 December 2025, ACAS early conciliation will double to 12 weeks. Discover what this change means, how it affects tribunal time limits and backlogs, and why more time may not always benefit employees or employers.

A person in a black suit sits at a white desk with their hands clasped next to a white coffee mug.

Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd - An appeal on endometriosis and the corporate consulting model - Category A in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 9 and 10 December 2025

By GERARD AIREY • September 1, 2025

Analysis of Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd: appeal on endometriosis, consulting model, and Category A classification in the EAT, 9–10 Dec 2025.

Hands resting on a wooden desk, using a calculator next to bank checks, cash, and glasses.

National Living Wage and Minimum Wage - Rate Changes

March 31, 2025

A full time employee that is over 21 will soon be earning nearly £24,000 per annum which could mean that more employees are close to the minimum wage. Having an employee working close to the minimum wage poses risks to businesses. For example, if an employee works any overtime, they may then fall below the minimum wage.

A woman in a dark blazer writes at a desk in an office with two colleagues working in the background.

Essential Steps to Navigate New UK Employment Laws: Preventing Workplace Sexual Harassment

January 13, 2025

Kilgannon & Partners outlines key steps to comply with the new UK duty to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Services include risk assessments, policy updates, staff training, and confidential reporting. Contact us for support.

You're Fired! (and rehired)