Search

How can we help?

Icon

Supreme Court prevents Tesco’s fire-and-rehire, but what does this mean for employers?

The Supreme Court recently upheld an injunction to prevent Tesco from using fire-and-rehire on employees who had the contractual benefit to enhanced pay, which was described as ‘permanent’.

The Supreme Court’s decision

Back in 2007, Tesco had planned to close down some of their existing distribution centres and open new ones. As part of this process Tesco wished to retain staff and offer staff who were willing to relocate a pay enhancement, referred to as “Retained Pay”. The terms of the Retained Pay were contained in a collective agreement between Tesco and USDAW (its recognised union) and was described as ‘permanent’ subject to specific circumstances.

Tesco planned to bring Retained Pay to an end in January 2021 and offered employees a lump sum payment in exchange for removing the Retained Pay clause. If employees did not agree to this, Tesco would terminate their employment and offer re-engagement on the same terms without the Retained Pay entitlement, this practice is often referred to as ‘fire-and-rehire’.

A group of employees brought a claim in the High Court and were granted an injunction preventing Tesco from terminating their contracts. Tesco successfully appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal held that the reference to Retained Pay being ‘permanent’ was guaranteed for the life of a particular contract of employment.

The USDAW appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and on the 12 September 2024 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the High Court’s injunction. The Supreme Court held that the right to receive Retained Pay will continue for as long as employment in the same role continues, subject to the specific conditions, and that right is deprived of its value if there is nothing to prevent Tesco from terminating the employment to defeat it. The Supreme Court also noted in its judgement that where a contractual term is incorporated into an employment contract from a collective agreement, the parties intentions may be relevant to the terms contextual interpretation.

 

Jesse Akiwumi

Trainee Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4662

Employers need to carefully consider their employees’ terms and communicate them effectively so that it is clearly understood by all parties and still allows some flexibility.

What does this mean for employers?

The facts and circumstances of the Tesco case are very specific; it is, therefore, unlikely to affect most fire-and-rehire cases. However, it serves as an important reminder to employers about how they express any contractual benefits to their employees. Employers need to carefully consider their employees’ terms and communicate them effectively so that it is clearly understood by all parties and still allows some flexibility. Employers should be aware of the risk of using ‘permanent’ or words to the same effect, and consider making terms conditional or imposing relevant cut-off dates.

The Labour Government has pledged to reform the law and provide employees with effective remedies against abusive fire-and-rehire tactics. The Employment Rights Bill, which the government has pledged to produce within 100 days of the general election, will provide clarity on the processes employers should use and the remedies available to employees.

If you would like advice on drafting employee’s contractual terms and ensuring appropriate communication with employee’s, please feel free to contact our employment team who will be happy to assist.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Jesse Akiwumi

Trainee Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4662

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 03 February 2025
  • Employment

Indirect discrimination: How mandated office returns could discriminate against working mothers

In this article though, we will focus on one of the biggest potential hurdles, and the one that is garnering the most media attention and the most criticism. Is a return to work policy discriminatory on grounds of sex?

art
  • 20 January 2025
  • Employment

AI Opportunities Action Plan – The impact of AI on employment

The Government has announced its ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan’ in which it plans to increase the use of AI across the UK to ensure the UK is a world leader in the field. 

art
  • 14 January 2025
  • Employment

Is this the end of working from home?

In this article, we explore what legal rights employees and businesses have in this context as well as considering more commercial factors.

art
  • 08 January 2025
  • Employment

Round-up of employment law changes in 2024 and what to look out for in 2025

In this article, we will take a whistlestop tour of the various key employment law and case law changes that have taken place this year and then we will highlight what to expect in 2025.

Pub
  • 06 January 2025
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series: Unfair Dismissal and TUPE

In this eighth episode of our TUPE Podcast Series, Katie Glendinning, a Partner in the employment team, focuses on dismissals in a TUPE context and, in particular, the additional protection afforded by TUPE.

art
  • 03 January 2025
  • Employment

Fire and Rehire – Change to compensation rules from 20 January 2025

This article considers the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recently published opinion on the impact assessments for the Employment Rights Bill. The Committee assessed the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform the government proposals and came to the overall opinion that the impact assessments are currently “not fit for purpose”.