Print manager dismissed for refusing minor contract changes: fire-and-rehire not a last resort
A print manager with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed after refusing two minor clauses in a new contract. The tribunal found the employer acted unreasonably by treating fire-and-rehire as a first resort. Compensation: £17,749.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #fire-and-rehire
- #continuity-of-employment
- #section-1-claim
- #minor-amendments
- #contributory-fault
Key facts
- Claimant was employed from December 2010, with a break between September 2016 and July 2017 when he resigned to run a cafe but continued doing ad hoc work.
- Respondent introduced new contracts in March 2022 using a template from the Federation of Small Businesses.
- Claimant objected to two clauses: one allowing unilateral changes to hours (5.3) and one restricting outside work (21.2).
- Respondent refused to make minor amendments proposed by claimant and dismissed him on 30 May 2022.
- Tribunal found dismissal unfair because respondent acted unreasonably in refusing minor amendments and not treating fire-and-rehire as last resort.
- Tribunal found no break in continuity of employment despite resignation and P45, as parties intended ongoing relationship.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an assistant printer.
-
First written contract issued
Contract was defective and non-compliant with section 1 ERA.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant resigned to set up a cafe, but agreed to help occasionally.
-
P45 issued
Respondent issued P45 with leaving date 28 September 2016.
-
Returned to full-time work
Claimant returned to work full-time as a printer, later promoted to print manager.
-
New contracts discussed
Respondent introduced new contracts; claimant objected to clauses 5.3 and 21.2.
-
Claimant proposed amendments
Claimant suggested minor amendments to the disputed clauses.
-
Ultimatum given
Respondent refused amendments and gave ultimatum to sign or be dismissed.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for refusing to sign new contract.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
Whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee who refused to accept two clauses in a new contract, and whether a break in employment affected continuity of service.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer unreasonably refused minor amendments to the new contract and did not treat fire-and-rehire as a last resort. The claimant's continuity of employment was preserved despite a resignation and P45, as the parties intended an ongoing relationship.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £9,421
- Wrongful dismissal: £4,788
- Section 1 claim: £3,540
- Total: £17,749
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should consider reasonable employee objections to new contract terms before resorting to dismissal.
- Fire-and-rehire should be a last resort, not a first response to contractual disagreements.
- Continuity of employment can survive a resignation if the parties intend an ongoing relationship and there is ad hoc work.
- Refusing to make minor amendments to a contract can be seen as unreasonable, especially for long-serving employees.
When a new contract becomes a battleground
A print manager with 12 years' service was dismissed after refusing to sign a new contract that contained two clauses he found objectionable. The clauses allowed the employer to unilaterally change his hours and restrict outside work. The employee proposed minor amendments, but the employer refused and gave an ultimatum: sign or be dismissed.
The tribunal found that the employer acted unreasonably. The changes were not essential to the business, and the employee's objections were reasonable. The employer had not treated dismissal as a last resort, and had not considered alternatives such as accepting the amendments or negotiating further.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have engaged with the employee's concerns. The proposed amendments were minor and would not have undermined the contract's purpose. Instead, the employer took a rigid stance and dismissed a long-serving employee. The tribunal noted that the employer's failure to treat fire-and-rehire as a last resort was a key factor in finding the dismissal unfair.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that employees can challenge dismissals arising from contract changes, especially when the employer refuses to consider reasonable objections. It also highlights that continuity of employment can be preserved even after a resignation, if the parties maintain an ongoing relationship. For employees facing similar situations, keeping records of objections and proposals is crucial. For employers, the message is clear: fire-and-rehire is a high-risk strategy that tribunals will scrutinise closely.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Gymnastics coach dismissed after asking for contract and payslips wins automatic unfair dismissal claim
A gymnastics coach was automatically unfairly dismissed after asserting her right to a written contract and payslips. The tribunal awarded £56,202 including compensation for unlawful wage deductions.
Headteacher dismissed for tapping her son's hand: unfair dismissal win after 17 years' service
A headteacher with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after tapping her 3-year-old son's hand to get his attention. The tribunal awarded £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.