Fire and re-hire: how much is the government really scaling back?

When the Bill was first introduced, it proposed making any dismissal for refusing a contractual change automatically unfair, unless the employer could meet a high financial threshold. That would have caught a wide range of scenarios — including some the government likely didn’t intend, such as workplace relocations or changes to duties.

The latest amendments scale that back by introducing the concept of a restricted variation. Only certain types of changes, including to pay, hours, pensions and shift patterns, will now trigger the automatic unfair dismissal protection. Other changes will fall outside the new regime and continue to be assessed under existing unfair dismissal principles.

In practice, these amendments remove some of the unintended consequences of the original drafting. But it would be wrong to see this as a major policy shift. Most of the changes that tend to lead to fire and re-hire exercises will still be caught.

If you would like advice on preparing for change under the Employment Rights Bill, please contact our Employment team.

As our recent article puts it:

"While the latest amendments narrow the scope of the fire and re-hire provisions in certain respects, the overall effect remains significant. Employers should not assume that the government has stepped back from its original policy intention.  The concept of a 'restricted variation' now provides clearer boundaries, but it is still defined broadly. It captures many of the contractual terms most commonly targeted in fire and re-hire scenarios, including reductions in pay, changes to pay calculation methods, adjustments to pensions, and changes to hours or shift patterns. These are the types of changes that typically lie at the heart of cost-saving restructures and harmonisation exercises."