As part of our series of updates exploring the implications of the Employment Rights Bill (the Bill), we explore the proposed restrictions on fire and rehire and collective redundancy consultation thresholds on our website here.

About Sarah Beeby
Sarah is a partner and head of the Firm's tier one ranked People, Reward and Mobility practice in Milton Keynes. A very experienced employment lawyer, she undertakes a full range of employment work for a wide variety of clients in the private and public sectors, including many leading companies and household names. Sarah's work includes advising on large-scale redundancy and restructuring exercises, TUPE transfers and complex outsourcing arrangements, as well as advising on the employment aspects of large corporate transactions, having worked on numerous multi-million pound transactions for an impressive portfolio of clients.

About Christopher Seymour
Christopher is an associate in Dentons' People, Reward and Mobility team, focusing on UK employment law. He has experience in both contentious and non-contentious areas of employment law, ranging from advisory and transactional matters through to tribunal litigation.
You might also like...
Redundancy fairness review by the EAT – the importance of consultation
EAT finds you cannot cherry pick from without prejudice conversations
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in the recent case of Graham v. Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd. (Agilitas), ruled that an employer cannot rely on parts of a without prejudice conversation held in accordance with s.111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and/or the "common law" without prejudice rule, whilst at the same time seeking to use the without prejudice rule as a shield in reference to that same conversation. S.111A of the ERA permits discussions between an employer and an employee with a view to terminating employment on agreed terms to remain confidential and inadmissible in proceedings before a tribunal for unfair dismissal.