A trade union and a leading law firm have expressed their disappointment at a Court of Appeal judgment last Friday which reversed a High Court decision on the issue of ‘fire and rehire’ at Tesco.
The judgment relates to 42 members of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw) employed by Tesco in its Daventry and Litchfield Distribution Centres.
“The judgment is a significant set-back, but we will seek leave to appeal and will do all that we can to continue to fight for justice on behalf of all of those affected. This is not the end of the road for the workers concerned, says trade union specialist at Thompsons Solicitors, Neil Todd.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
‘Fire and rehire’
Usdaw – represented by social justice law firm, Thompsons Solicitors – won a landmark legal victory in February against the supermarket giant over its decision to dismiss a number of its staff and seek to re-engage them on inferior terms and conditions.
The workers were informed that if they did not give up their entitlement to a considerable proportion of their wages – known as Retained Pay – they would be dismissed and then re-engaged on the less favourable terms in any event as part of a deliberate cost-saving strategy by the supermarket.
Joane McGuiness, Usdaw National Officer, said: “We were shocked when Tesco adopted fire and rehire tactics to try and strip this right away and this is why we sought an injunction from the High Court. Today’s ruling overturning that injunction will not deter us.
“It is simply not right that very clear commitments to loyal workers can be simply set aside on a whim as it is no longer convenient for the company to have to continue to make the payments concerned. We have instructed our solicitors to prepare grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court and we will exhaust every avenue to protect our members’ terms and conditions of employment.”
“guaranteed for life”
The High Court had originally found that, as the parties had agreed this payment was “permanent” and “guaranteed for life”, the employer was not entitled to serve notice on the contract when its sole purpose for doing so was to remove the benefit in question.
However, in a deeply disappointing decision from the Court of Appeal it determined that it was unable to accept that the phrases “permanent” and “guaranteed for life” showed a mutual intention on behalf of both parties that the right to Retained Pay would continue as long as the employee in question performed the role in which they were currently employed to undertake.
This was despite the very clear wording in joint statements issued by Tesco and Usdaw at the time.
A lack of clarity
In the Court’s view there was a lack of clarity as to what both parties meant by “permanent”.
In light of this finding the Court also concluded it could not imply a term into the contract to prevent the employer serving notice, even in circumstances where it was doing so solely in order to remove the Right to Retained Pay.
Following on from this, the Court decided to remove the injunction currently in place preventing Tesco from dismissing these workers. However, Usdaw, on behalf of the members concerned, remains determined to fight on against these shameful “fire and rehire” tactics and has made clear it will now seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court.
Amelia Brand is the Editor for HRreview, and host of the HR in Review podcast series. With a Master’s degree in Legal and Political Theory, her particular interests within HR include employment law, DE&I, and wellbeing within the workplace. Prior to working with HRreview, Amelia was Sub-Editor of a magazine, and Editor of the Environmental Justice Project at University College London, writing and overseeing articles into UCL’s weekly newsletter. Her previous academic work has focused on philosophy, politics and law, with a special focus on how artificial intelligence will feature in the future.
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
