Reinstatement vs re-engagement

Two remedies that put you back to work instead of paying you out — and why, in practice, compensation is almost always what claimants actually receive.

What is the difference between reinstatement and re-engagement?

Reinstatement means returning to your exact old job on the same terms — same title, pay, location, hours and reporting line. Re-engagement means returning to a comparable role with the same employer, not necessarily your old job. Both are available as remedies in unfair dismissal, but reinstatement is the law's first preference under Employment Rights Act 1996, s.114.

Can a tribunal order reinstatement against the employer's wishes?

Yes, technically — but it rarely does. An employer can refuse to comply and instead pay an additional award of 26 to 52 weeks' pay. Because the tribunal cannot physically force an employer to take someone back, it will usually refuse to make the order if the employer has clearly stated it will not comply, since a hollow order helps no one.

Why do tribunals rarely order reinstatement?

Three reasons dominate: the working relationship is usually too damaged to restore; the employer opposes it and will simply pay the additional award rather than comply; and the job may no longer exist in the same form after the months or years the case took to resolve. Tribunals are realistic about all three.

What is an additional award?

An additional award is extra compensation payable when an employer refuses to comply with a reinstatement or re-engagement order. It is between 26 and 52 weeks' gross pay (subject to the weekly pay cap, currently set at £751 for 2026/27). It sits on top of the basic and compensatory awards already made.

Does asking for reinstatement affect my compensation claim?

Not directly. The tribunal will still calculate the basic and compensatory awards in the usual way. If you ask for reinstatement and are refused by the tribunal, it moves to compensation. If reinstatement is ordered and the employer refuses, you get the full compensation plus the additional award. Asking for reinstatement when you genuinely want it carries no penalty.

What happens to pay between dismissal and the reinstatement order?

A reinstatement order must specify any arrears of pay and benefits for the period between dismissal and the date the order takes effect. This is sometimes called the "back pay" element. The tribunal can deduct earnings from other employment during that period if the employer can show them.

Is re-engagement ever ordered when reinstatement is refused?

It can be — re-engagement is slightly more flexible because it only requires a comparable role, not the original one. However, the same practical barriers usually apply: broken trust, employer opposition and the absence of a suitable role. Re-engagement orders are rare for the same reasons reinstatement orders are rare.

Should I ask for reinstatement if I really want compensation?

No. If you do not genuinely want your job back, asking for reinstatement wastes hearing time and can undermine your credibility with the tribunal. Ask for compensation straightforwardly and make sure your schedule of loss covers all your losses clearly.

Reinstatement vs re-engagement

Start My Claim — UK Legal Case Builder

Build and run your own employment tribunal, small claims, scam refund or renters' rights case with Start My Claim.

Employment Tribunal · Glossary

Reinstatement vs re-engagement

Last reviewed: May 2026

Employment Tribunal track

means the tribunal orders your employer to give you your exact old job back on the same terms;

means a comparable role with the same employer. Both are available after a successful unfair dismissal claim, but tribunals rarely order either — and when they do, employers can refuse in exchange for paying an additional award of 26 to 52 weeks' pay.

Where this comes from

Employment Rights Act 1996, ss.113–117

— the primary code: reinstatement (s.114), re-engagement (s.115), and the additional award for non-compliance (s.117).

Rembiszewski v Atkins Ltd [2012] UKEAT/0402/11

— tribunal must explain reinstatement and re-engagement options to claimants; practicability is the key test.

Meridian Ltd v Gomersall [1977] ICR 597 (EAT)

— the employer's genuine opposition is a strong indicator that reinstatement is not practicable.

ACAS — Remedies for unfair dismissal

What reinstatement and re-engagement actually mean

When a tribunal finds that a dismissal was unfair, it moves to remedy. Before calculating compensation, it is required by statute to ask whether you want your job back. If you do, the tribunal considers two orders that achieve that: reinstatement and re-engagement.

is defined in section 114 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employer must treat you as if the dismissal had never happened. You return to the same position — same job title, same pay, same location, same hours, same line manager. Your continuity of employment is preserved as if unbroken. The reinstatement order also covers any arrears of pay and benefits between the dismissal and the date you return.

, defined in section 115, is a step down in ambition. The employer does not have to restore your original role — it has to offer you employment in a comparable or otherwise suitable job. The tribunal specifies the terms: what the role must pay, where it must be based, what hours it must involve. If the employer cannot find something that meets those terms, re-engagement cannot be ordered.

In either case the tribunal must be satisfied that making the order is

. That single word does most of the work. Practicability is assessed at the time of the hearing, not the time of the dismissal. If the job has gone, the team has changed, or the relationship is too damaged to survive, the tribunal will say re-employment is not practicable and move straight to compensation.

How it works in practice

Dara was a senior buyer at a logistics company, earning

. She was dismissed after raising a grievance about her line manager — the tribunal finds it was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure). She asks for reinstatement.

At the remedy hearing the employer argues reinstatement is not practicable. Her old manager is still in post, the team has been restructured, and her role has been absorbed into a new combined position filled internally. The tribunal agrees on the job point: the original role no longer exists as a discrete post.

The tribunal then considers re-engagement. A comparable senior buyer role at the same pay and location is, on the evidence, available — another internal vacancy is open. Dara confirms she would accept re-engagement if reinstatement cannot be ordered.

Re-engagement term required

Same pay / same site

Additional award if employer refuses

Weekly pay cap (2026/27) for additional award

The tribunal makes a re-engagement order. The employer declines to comply. Dara is therefore entitled to an

of between 26 and 52 weeks' pay — up to £39,052 at the uncapped rate, but capped by the weekly pay limit at a maximum of £39,052 (52 × £751). That is paid on top of her full basic and compensatory awards calculated in the usual way.

Why tribunals rarely order re-employment

Employment law statistics consistently show that reinstatement and re-engagement orders account for a small fraction of all tribunal remedies — well under five per cent of cases in which the claimant is successful. Three factors explain almost every refusal.

The relationship is broken.

A tribunal case takes months or years. By the end the parties have exchanged witness statements, challenged each other's evidence at a hearing, and often hold each other in open hostility. Placing someone back into a working environment built on that history is rarely productive. Tribunals recognise that ordering re-employment does not restore the trust that made it work the first time.

Roles are restructured, teams are reorganised, and budget changes happen. If the original post no longer exists, reinstatement is impossible. If no comparable role is available, re-engagement is equally impossible. By the time a case concludes, particularly in larger organisations that have been through restructuring, the landscape may have changed entirely.

The employer will simply pay the additional award.

An employer who does not want to take someone back cannot be compelled to physically do so. Refusing an order triggers the additional award — typically 26 to 52 weeks' pay — but no other sanction. For many employers that is a price worth paying rather than accepting an unwanted employee back. Tribunals, knowing this, are reluctant to make an order the employer will immediately ignore.

Common pitfalls for claimants

Frequently asked questions

Sources & further reading

Deciding between reinstatement and compensation?

Start My Claim helps you model your full schedule of loss and think through whether re-employment is realistic for your situation — before you commit to a remedy position at the hearing.

Last reviewed: May 2026.

Statutory references checked against the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2026 as in force on 22 May 2026.

This page is explanatory only and is not legal advice. Start My Claim is self-service software, not a law firm — its tools help you build and run your own case.