Having been asked by the government to investigate the issue, Acas published its long-awaited report on dismissal and re-engagement on 8 June.

In it, it suggested a number of legislative options for bringing this practice under control, such as “tightening up the law around unfair dismissal; enhancing the requirement and capacity for employment tribunals to scrutinise businesses’ rationale for change in relevant cases; protecting continuity of employment in fire-and-rehire scenarios; and strengthening employers’ consultation obligations around proposed dismissals”.

It also put forward some non-legislative options, including “improved guidance for employers on relevant legal obligations and good practice” and “publishing ‘name and shame’ data on employers’ use of fire-and-rehire practices on a government website”.

At the time of writing, the government is reportedly still considering its response; however, a Commons debate on 25 May did shed some light on the government’s stance.

In short, the government has always been clear that it is “completely unacceptable” to use the threat of fire and re-hire as a tactic to put undue pressure on workers during negotiations. However, during the recent debate, Paul Scully MP said that while the government “expects employers to treat staff with empathy and compassion”, it is important to “tread carefully when considering government intervention in commercial contractual matters between employers and employees.” In other words, it is seemingly reluctant to get involved.

Mr Scully also said that the government “must also allow businesses to take the sometimes-difficult decisions that are necessary to preserve their commercial viability”, which seems to suggest that businesses will be excused if they find themselves with no other option.

James Tamm says that while nothing said in the Commons takes us much further forward in respect to a definitive position on fire and rehire, the overall tone suggests that the government is unlikely to do anything about employers who use these tactics.

He explains: “I take MPs’ recent comments to mean that nothing will change, save for reiterating that fire and rehire should be a last resort, which is pretty much the case anyway. This is just an assumption until its response on the matter is published, but the fact that there was no mention of fire and rehire in the Queen’s Speech last month does seem to suggest that the government is taking a back seat on the issue.

“Without any practical change to existing law, hauling companies over the coals for these practices will be little more than a headline grab.”

The government has promised to communicate next steps “in due course”, saying it must “consult and ensure that legislation is made with careful consideration and debate”.