header-logo header-logo

07 June 2024 / Clare Fletcher
Issue: 8074 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Where next for ‘fire & rehire’?

176263
Clare Fletcher looks into the Tesco ‘retained pay’ case & ponders how Labour in government might treat the issue
  • The Tesco ‘retained pay’ case could have significant implications for employees at Tesco, and employers who seek to harmonise their employees’ contractual terms.
  • The new code of practice for fire and rehire may have changed the scenario in the Tesco case in various ways.
  • Looks beyond 4 July, and considers how a Labour government might overhaul the law surrounding fire and rehire.

‘Fire and rehire’ is a contractual mechanism for implementing contentious changes to employees’ terms and conditions. It has been recognised and utilised in various scenarios for many years, but has come under greater scrutiny following a number of recent high-profile instances. This has resulted in both a legal challenge which reached the UK’s highest court in April, and a new statutory code of practice due to come into force in July. This article considers the implications of these developments, and what the future holds for fire and rehire.

In court

On

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll