Why Annabelle Ewing Backs a UK-Wide Ban on Fire and Rehire Practices

Fire and rehire happens when an employer ends a worker’s employment, then rehires them on a new contract with different terms. Annabelle Ewing believes this turns dismissal into pressure to accept lower pay, changed duties or fewer hours. As the SNP candidate for Ochil and South Perthshire, she backs a UK-wide ban protecting continuity while allowing fair redundancy procedures.

Australian readers will recognise the stakes, though the law differs. Melbourne cafés build casual rosters around split shifts, while Pilbara crews negotiate fly-in, fly-out schedules and enterprise agreements. Australians call workplace fairness a “fair go”. The Fair Work Act, modern awards and National Employment Standards shape employment, with redundancy pay generally outside the Standards. These are comparisons, not equivalents; Ewing’s proposal concerns the UK.

Employment route	Worker impact	Employer duty
Dismissal plus a new contract	Security and continuity can weaken	Do not force worse terms through dismissal
Consultation and redeployment	Employment remains where work exists	Offer alternatives before termination
Genuine redundancy	Role ends, but rights remain	Use fair selection, notice and redundancy pay

The coercive pattern Ewing wants ended

Fire and rehire is not simply another word for redundancy. A business can close a site or change what it sells, and employment law governs how it treats affected workers. The abusive pattern begins when dismissal becomes the opening move in a negotiation over a new contract.

The worker must accept changed terms or lose the job. That pressure can put pay, hours, duties and security at risk, especially where zero-hours contracts, casual work or delivery shifts provide little certainty. It can also weaken collective bargaining by sidestepping negotiated conditions one contract at a time.

For Ewing, a statutory ban removes the need to litigate unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal claims after pressure begins. Clear rules separate honest restructuring from coercive bargaining and give workers, trade unions and employers a shared understanding of legitimate change.

A fair alternative for workers and employers

A ban is credible only if it creates a workable alternative. Ewing’s policy should pair a prohibition on coercive dismissal with fair redundancy and reorganisation procedures.

For workers:

• Protect continuous service and accrued benefits when the same employer rehires someone.
• Negotiate changes to pay, duties, location and hours rather than impose them through dismissal.
• Give notice, consultation and redundancy pay when a role is genuinely removed.

Employers need a clear boundary. They must respond to insolvency, falling demand or changing customer needs without making every difficult decision a legal confrontation.

For employers and communities:

• Preserve a lawful route for closure, insolvency and genuine redundancy.
• Require early notice, vacancy matching, workforce planning, redeployment and retraining.
• Give certainty about consultation and settlement.
• Reward stable staffing through training and better service.

Together, these safeguards offer worker continuity and business flexibility. Legal certainty can support training and long-term staffing rather than constant contract turnover.

Secure work and a stronger economy

Secure work is part of economic recovery. Workers with reliable hours, pay and progression stay in sectors, build skills and spend locally. That steadiness helps small firms sustaining Scottish high streets, tourism and rural services.

Small employers face weak demand, rising costs and recruitment shortages. Ewing’s case is not that every company should be shielded from change, but that firms should not gain leverage by threatening dismissal to rewrite an agreement.

In Melbourne, where hospitality businesses compete for staff during busy service periods, stable hours and clear duties can be as valuable as the wage itself. Workers describe their expectation as a “fair go”, while employers gain stronger teams and more reliable service.

Recovery must reach local communities

Recovery must reach communities slow to benefit from national policy. Rural economies depend on hospitality, outdoor tourism and essential services, often where few roles shape opportunities. Seasonal insecurity can weaken the communities tourism should sustain.

International experience reinforces the point. Accounts of Sabah’s rural tourism revival describe how a regional tourism economy can rebuild when local businesses have capacity and confidence. For Ewing, recovery is stronger when workers are not trapped in a revolving door of temporary contracts.

That lesson fits Scotland’s economic platform. Scottish independence is about sovereignty, but also whether a country can build an economy around decent work, secure communities and decisions made close to affected people. Fairer employment rules belong within that recovery project.

Westminster, Scotland and independence

Employment law is largely reserved to Westminster, which is why Ewing argues for a UK-wide ban rather than a patchwork of promises. A Scottish candidate can press Parliament for a national standard covering Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Westminster representation is part of delivering policy, not a substitute for campaigning at home.

Her background gives the campaign authority. A trained solicitor, Ewing served as an MP and in government, and has seen how political decisions affect households. That experience informs her focus on enforceable workers’ rights: fairness is strongest when people know the law and available remedy.

Her candidacy for Ochil and South Perthshire connects national arguments to everyday life while representing Scotland at Westminster. Meetings, doorsteps and local events around Dunning and the Ochils make the case tangible. The message travels from rural Scotland to Parliament: Scotland needs a stronger voice in a UK able to deliver fairness at work.

A clear ban and practical action

Economic recovery is judged by whether it reaches the people keeping communities running. Fire and rehire makes insecurity part of the bargain. Ewing’s alternative is straightforward: prohibit coercive dismissal and rehire, require genuine consultation and protect continuity wherever work remains.

Support Ewing’s campaign for a UK-wide ban, share the policy with colleagues and friends, volunteer at a local event, and ask campaign representatives how you can help. Clear legal standards would give workers confidence, employers certainty and Scotland a louder voice for a fairer economy.