The winter forecast is softer than expected. A venue wants to close one lunch, shorten two evenings and reduce contracted hours. On the rota, that can look like moving a few boxes.
If the boxes represent contractual pay, hours or working patterns, it is not just a scheduling decision. It is a proposed change to people's employment terms.
That distinction is about to carry more weight. The government has published a revised draft Code of Practice on dismissal and re-engagement, often called fire and rehire. The consultation opened on 22 October and closes at 11:59pm on 17 December 2026.
The consultation gives operators a useful view of the intended direction. It does not change the law today.
What changed?
The Employment Rights Act 2025 has already created stronger protections against dismissing an employee and offering re-engagement on changed terms. Those protections are confirmed law but are not yet in force.
The government's latest implementation timeline, updated on 22 October, says the new protections are intended to start in March 2027.
The same day, the government published a proposed replacement for the current Code of Practice. The consultation document says the final Code is expected in summer 2027, after the consultation and approval by both Houses of Parliament.
That creates three distinct positions:
| Position | What it means |
|---|---|
| In force now | The 2024 Code remains in force. Employers considering dismissal and re-engagement should treat it as a last resort, share information and consult with the aim of reaching agreement. |
| Confirmed future law | The Act will make dismissal to force through certain restricted variations automatically unfair in most cases. The government intends these protections to start in March 2027. |
| Still a proposal | The revised Code is marked as not government policy and subject to consultation. Its wording may change, and it needs parliamentary approval before taking effect. |
The current 2024 Code came into force on 18 July 2024. It has not disappeared while the replacement is being discussed.
Why does this matter to hospitality?
The confirmed future protections cover several terms that sit close to everyday workforce planning:
- reductions to pay
- increases or reductions to total contracted hours
- reductions to contractual leave
- changes to pensions
- specified changes to shift patterns
- adding a clause that would allow an employer to make one of those changes without agreement
These are described as restricted variations in section 28 of the Employment Rights Act 2025. Once commenced, dismissing someone because they did not agree to one of these changes will usually be automatically unfair. There is a narrow exception for employers facing serious financial difficulties, but the statutory test is deliberately demanding.
The Act also protects employees from being dismissed and replaced with a non-employee, such as an agency worker, who would do substantially the same work. Genuine reductions in the need for work and genuine redundancies are treated separately.
Hospitality businesses regularly change opening hours, service periods and labour deployment. Those operational choices are not automatically contract changes. The important question is whether the proposal also changes a contractual entitlement or obligation.
A flexible pattern that has genuinely been agreed in the contract may leave room to schedule different weeks. A fixed working pattern, guaranteed number of hours or established contractual term may not. The label on the rota does not decide the point.
What does the draft Code expect?
The draft revised Code focuses on reasonable information-sharing and meaningful consultation.
Its proposed approach is that consultation should begin while a proposal can still be influenced or withdrawn. Employers should explain the business reasons, share relevant information, listen to alternatives and keep consulting for as long as is reasonable with the aim of agreement.
The draft says employers should contact Acas before raising the prospect of dismissal and re-engagement. It also says a threat of dismissal should not be used as a negotiating tactic where dismissal is not genuinely being considered.
For changes outside the restricted list, dismissal and re-engagement would not automatically be unfair. The draft still expects a potentially fair reason, a reasonable process, meaningful consultation, exhaustive attempts to reach agreement and no reasonable alternative.
If the eventual Code keeps the same legal effect as the current one, an employment tribunal could increase compensation by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably failed to follow it and it applied to the claim. The consultation proposes retaining that consequence, but the final wording is not settled.
What should an operator check now?
- Separate the rota from the contract. Mark any proposal that changes pay, total contracted hours, guaranteed hours, leave, pensions or a fixed shift pattern. Do not assume a new rota changes the underlying agreement.
- Read the actual terms. Check contracts, written statements, collective agreements, later letters and any consistent arrangements that may have become contractual. Take advice before relying on a flexibility clause.
- Write down the business reason. Record the trading evidence, the problem to solve and the alternatives considered. A general instruction to cut labour is not a complete case for changing contractual terms.
- Start before the decision is finished. Consultation is not meaningful if the outcome has already been fixed. Give affected people and their representatives enough information to understand the proposal and suggest alternatives.
- Keep dismissal language out of ordinary bargaining. Do not introduce fire and rehire as leverage. If it is genuinely being considered, follow the current Code, speak to Acas and take employment-law advice.
- Check the employer and representation route. Identify who can agree contract changes for the employer, whether a recognised union or employee representatives must be involved and whether collective consultation rules could also apply.
- Use the consultation if the draft is unworkable. Businesses and employers can respond until 17 December. Practical evidence about seasonal hours, multi-site operations and the boundary between a flexible rota and a contractual pattern will be more useful than a general objection.
Acas's current guidance on changing employment contracts remains a useful starting point. It says employers should fully consult, carefully consider objections and treat dismissal and re-engagement as an extreme step.
What remains uncertain?
The final Code may differ from the consultation draft. The government says the Act protections are intended for March 2027 and the replacement Code for summer 2027, but the legal commencement instruments and final approved Code still need to follow.
The detail of which shift-pattern changes will be specified is also important. The Act allows regulations to define the covered changes. Until that detail is final, operators should not treat every rota adjustment as a restricted variation or assume that none will qualify.
The serious-financial-difficulties exception will be fact-specific. It is not a general permission to force through changes because trading is difficult, margins are under pressure or a cheaper model is preferred.
The practical point: a new service pattern may be operationally sensible, but it does not rewrite an employment contract. Find the contractual change before publishing the rota, then use a process built to reach agreement.
Topics: Employment contracts, fire and rehire, working hours, shift patterns and workforce planning.
General information only: This briefing is not legal advice. Contract terms and consultation duties depend on the facts. Check the legislation and current Code, and take advice before imposing changes or considering dismissal and re-engagement.