Last year I had correspondence from several constituents who worked for British Airways and British Gas.
I would like to quote from one of my constituents who worked for BA –
“I am writing to you to express my outrage at the way BA are treating their loyal workforce. The same staff that have made BA the successful and profitable company that they are today.
I should like to bring you up to date with a new development which will come as a blow not only to British Airways at Gatwick but also to the wider Gatwick Community.
As you will be aware British Airways had already announced its intention to transfer (TUPE) all of its Gatwick Based customer facing Ground Staff from BA to a wholly owned subsidiary – Gatwick Ground Services Limited on 15th July
GGS then wrote a Section 188 letter to the unions stating that it then plans to sack all of these staff plus most of its existing staff. (Baggage Handlers, Ramp Staff, Flight Supervisors etc).
The combined GGS workforce would total 923 of which there will be 676 redundancies
These redundancies are in addition to the 12,000 already announced by BA and effectively signals BAs departure from Gatwick
This action clearly shows that BA has taken no notice of the pressure being brought to bear by MPs and the public
The issuance of a further Section 188 notice and more planned redundancies reiterates its already documented abuse of the CJRS process set up by the Government to support jobs and avoid this scenario.
It makes no sense to TUPE staff from BA to GGS and then immediately dismiss them – clearly BA is trying to avoid its statutory obligations by doing this. In addition it allows it to keep these redundancy figures out of BAs figures as the redundancies are being made by a different company.
As well as the clear impact on Staff, the local economy and associated jobs this is another example of IAG/BAs disingenuous lack of regard for the thoughts of the country as a whole for its actions.
All the staff at BA are keen to work with BA to seek a way out of this crisis – we are open to reduced hours, temporary pay cuts etc to keep our jobs, to help both the local and wider economy and to keep UK PLC connected to the world.
We are in unprecedented times – unfortunately IAG and BA are taking advantage of this to take unprecedented action against its staff and the interest of the country it represents.”
This extract shows how upset my constituent was – and she was not the only one. Her employer wanted to change the terms and conditions of her employment, presenting her with a pretty onerous choice; accept worse terms and conditions or lose her job.
The Covid pandemic caused a loss of business for many businesses and highlighted several high-profile disputes about the use of ‘fire and rehire’ tactics. This could actually be seen as positive, as it highlighted a practice that has been going on for decades by some companies. Whilst the total number of workers affected by this is not known, a report by the Trades Union Congress in January 2021 estimated the number to be around 9 per cent of all workers, with the young and BME communities most affected. This is unacceptable and the practise should not be happening, particularly as a negotiating tactic.
The disputes which affected my constituents working for British Airways and British Gas led to calls for reform to the legislation, including suggested amendments to both the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Currently, the practise of ‘fire and rehire’ occurs when an employer dismisses an employee and offers to rehire them on new terms. These terms are usually more favourable to the employer, and dismissal and re-engagement is typically used when it has not been possible to vary the terms of the existing contract. This practise is not unlawful, however employers may face claims of unfair dismissal. If there are sufficient numbers of employees affected, the employer has a legal duty to undertake collective consultations before making any decisions.
I am aware that a number of PMB’s have been introduced to reform this practice, including two by the Honourable Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire last year. These would have seen a new provision added to the Employment Rights Act 1996 to make dismissal automatically unfair if the purpose of the dismissal was to re-employ the employee on less favourable terms. This would therefore effectively make all dismissal and re-engagement unlawful in any circumstance. Both Bills failed to pass through Parliament.
In 2020, the Government asked Acas to collect evidence on the practice of ‘fire and rehire’; there had been the issue with BA and then British Gas, which was later resolved. The findings showed that this practice includes instances where ‘fire and rehire’ has been threatened, but not implemented, in addition to actual dismissal and re-engagement.
The findings also indicated that this practice became more prevalent in the years before as well as during the pandemic. In response, the Government was clear that it expects employers to exhaust all possible options before using dismissal and re-engagement and has commissioned Acas to provide further guidance to encourage good employment relations practise.
I am heartened that the Government is taking immediate action by helping deliver clearer guidance to companies about fire and rehire practices, protecting workers and helping employers comply with the UK’s leading employment rights. After it was reported that a number of businesses have been inappropriately using hire and refire policies, we took immediate steps to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on this practice and will be keeping this under review.
The Government is under no doubt that ‘fire and rehire’ is bad employment practise and should only be used once all possible alternative options have been exhausted. However, there are too many scenarios where businesses need the flexibility to change workers’ terms and conditions to avoid mass redundancies and insolvency and so the straight outlawing of ‘fire and rehire’ would not necessarily solve the problem, but may well have unintended consequences. Far better to have the flexibility in your business than no business at all.
It would be counter-productive if measures that prevented businesses re-hiring staff on different terms and conditions meant that a business could no longer survive, and its staff found themselves out of work. That would be the worst possible outcome for both businesses and the people they employ.
This Conservative Government has a great record on workers’ rights in this country and is committed to maintaining it. I reiterate, it has said that it is completely unacceptable to use ‘fire and rehire’ tactics as a negotiation tool or to pressure individuals.
The UK’s dynamic, flexible, labour market with its high protections for workers is valued by both employees and businesses and underpins the success of our economy. We are continuing to secure and maintain strong employer and employee relationships in the UK.
This is clearly a complex area for both businesses and workers. That is why we have asked Acas to produce better, more comprehensive, clearer guidance to help employers explore all the options before considering ‘fire and rehire’ and encourage good employment relations practice.’
We must also allow businesses to take the decisions – sometimes difficult decisions – that are necessary to preserve their commercial viability. We know that the vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, the choice to let someone go is not one they take lightly, and usually comes at a time of great financial uncertainty for the business.