Author
Listed:
- Marilyn J Pittard
- K D Ewing
Abstract
The practice of firing employees and then rehiring them in their same jobs on inferior conditions and lower wages (‘fire and rehire’) has emerged as a matter of acute political controversy. Its use in the United Kingdom has become even more controversial in the period since the Covid-19 pandemic. A brutal example of the practice was seen in the P&O case, which could be viewed as an example of ‘fire and replace’ as well as ‘fire and rehire’. In March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, setting aside £44 million to meet the anticipated compensation costs arising from its failure to comply with multiple employment law obligations owed to the crew. Approximately 100 of those dismissed were re-engaged on new terms, the remainder replaced by new crew engaged through agencies on inferior terms and conditions. This article addresses what would need to be done to ‘ban’ fire and rehire, and the related practice of fire and replace. It is argued that fire and rehire is a symptom of system failure which will not be addressed by sticking plaster solutions or by an unenforceable code, but by addressing the underlying causes. This means better regulation, treating collective agreements and contracts of employment with greater respect, better procedures for the negotiation of change, and more effective remedies designed to restrain employers from acting unlawfully. In addressing these matters we draw extensively on the experience of Australia where fire and rehire as understood or practised in the United Kingdom is largely unknown.
Suggested Citation
Marilyn J Pittard & K D Ewing, 2024.
"‘Fire and Rehire’: Four Lessons from Australia,"
Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(3), pages 331-369.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:331-369.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:331-369.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.