The notion of ‘quiet quitting’ came about in the immediate post-Covid period when employees were reassessing their commitment to their workplace. Now, employers are deploying a way of sowing disenchantment among workers to trim numbers. But there are major risks attached, write employment law experts Nick Hurley and Emily McPartland at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys
If you thought “quiet quitting” was the hot workplace trend to watch, brace yourself for its corporate cousin: “quiet cutting”. Unlike the viral TikTok phenomenon where employees silently disengage, quiet cutting is an employer’s manoeuvre. It involves discreetly reassigning staff to different roles or reducing career development or training opportunities, thereby encouraging employees to leave voluntarily rather than making formal redundancies.
Like all US phenomena, quiet cutting is making an appearance this side of the pond. But is this subtle reshuffling a cost-saving masterstroke, or a legal minefield waiting to blow?
Redundancy and vacancies
Vacancies down 17% as labour market weakens
Redundancies boost candidate availability at fastest pace since 2020
Understanding quiet cutting
“Quiet cutting” refers to employers shuffling the deck – demoting, laterally moving, or reshuffling employees’ roles as an alternative to redundancy or termination.
Rather than making redundancies, employers might engage in practices that subtly undermine an employee’s position, such as quietly overlooking training or promotion opportunities, or providing minimal feedback and support.
Sudden changes in communication and workplace conditions might signal “quiet cutting”. It is a quiet, sometimes subtle, nudge that can fundamentally change an employee’s day-to-day work, and their morale.
Why is it happening?
This “trend” has gained momentum over the past few years due to several factors:
- Economic uncertainty and the need to cut costs without resorting to redundancies.
- A drive to retain talent while managing tight headcount.
- A belief that subtle changes are less demoralising than official redundancies.
However, it carries the risk of being used as a tool to avoid redundancy costs by pushing people out, effectively forcing them to resign. In avoiding costs, many legal risks are overlooked.
Legal risks lurking behind the ‘quiet’
These beneath-the-surface reshuffles can fall foul of several employment law landmines:
1. Constructive dismissal
The key test: did the employer fundamentally breach the employee’s employment contract such that the employee considered themselves as dismissed and accordingly resigned? Courts would look at both express terms – such as job title, duties, pay, and reporting lines – and implied terms, including the duty not to act in a way that destroys mutual trust and confidence. Quiet cutting may breach express terms if the employer unilaterally changes aspects of a role without contractual authority. Sidelining or undermining an employee can breach implied duties, leading to constructive dismissal claims.
2. Breach of contract
Unless the employment contract explicitly allows role changes and unilateral demotions (especially those decreasing pay or status) such changes can breach contractual terms.
3. Discrimination risk
If lateral moves disproportionately affect specific groups, such as those returning from parental leave, unlawful discrimination claims may follow under the Equality Act 2010.
Case spotlight
A recent tribunal ruling in Mr N Walker v Robsons (Rickmansworth) is a striking example of “quiet cutting” gone wrong.
Walker had been a branch manager at an estate agency since 2017. In 2022, he was informed that he would be moved to a different branch, but by May 2023, he was asked to return to his original branch.
On his return to the original branch, without warning, he was stripped of his exclusive “back office” desk (symbolic of manager status within the agency), and seated at a lesser “middle” desk, perceived to be for assistant managers.
Walker resigned, claiming constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that the move seriously damaged trust and confidence, and amounted to a demotion. Walker succeeded in his claim.
Employee rights when faced with quiet cutting
Employees are not powerless when quietly shifted, they may take action by:
- Raising a grievance.
- Refusing the role change, if it is substantially different or unpaid.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal, provided there is a fundamental breach and resignation follows promptly.
- Making an employment tribunal claim.
The wider impact: morale, reputation and culture
Quiet cutting can unleash more than legal risk:
- Trust takes years to build, seconds to fray or break. A lack of trust in leadership may reduce employee engagement and loyalty.
- Quiet reassignment breeds gossip, fear, and resentment.
- Top talent might flee.
- Reputation damage spreads quickly.
Practical tips for HR and legal teams
To effectively manage role changes within an organisation, it is crucial to approach the process with careful planning and transparent communication. Begin by developing a comprehensive business case that clearly documents the rationale behind each proposed change, such as cost considerations or evolving skill requirements.
Next, review employment contracts to identify any flexibility clauses that might permit role changes, demotions, or alterations in pay. If the contract supports such changes, engage in consultations with affected employees to discuss proposals and incorporate feedback.
Securing the employee’s consent is essential, and this should be formalised through written agreements, ideally in the form of variation letters that detail the specific changes to their role. Conduct an impact analysis to ensure that the changes do not disproportionately affect protected groups to mitigate the risk of discrimination claims. To further ease the transition and minimise employee dissatisfaction, offer notice periods, transitional support, and mentorship opportunities.
Throughout this process, maintain transparent communication to prevent misinformation and gossip. Monitor and review the procedure to assess its impact on employee retention and grievances. A structured approach will help ensure that role changes are implemented smoothly and equitably, safeguarding both the organisation’s and employees’ interests.
Final word
Quiet cutting might seem like a clever alternative to redundancy, but without transparent processes, contract clarity, and empathy, it can boomerang into constructive dismissal claims, reputational damage, and staff disengagement.
A timely reminder for employers: the Employment Rights Bill is proposing new rules on fire and rehire practices. The Bill seeks to make it automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for refusing to agree to a variation of their employment terms and conditions, along with potential uplifts in compensation for non-compliance. Now is the time to review your approach. If legitimate contractual changes are needed, it is far safer to implement them transparently before the new regime comes into force. Employers should be aware of reputational risks. Fire and rehire practices, while lawful, should be a last resort, as they can impact perceptions of fairness and respect towards employees.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
