Do I have an unfair dismissal case?

Thank you for your reply.

p00hsticks wrote: »

So how did you end up being made redundant ? did they simply say 'we have no more need of job title x' or was there some sort of scoring system from a pool of people with similar roles ?

No more need for job title x (although I stopped actually doing that role about 1.5 years ago, and I have colleagues in other regions with the same job title, who aren't being made redundant).

p00hsticks wrote: »

Contraactually agreed flexible working, or simply a manager giving you an unofficial nod that you could work from home from time to time ?

In our employee benefits package, it states we can have flexible working. I do 2 days in the office & 3 from home. Another girl in the office does the same, and there's others that do 3 in the office & 2 from home - albeit, I was a department of one.

ssparks2003 wrote: »

there was a buisness restructure, the role that you had been doing (but not recently) was going and you was offered a new role this was made up of the role that you had recently done (but did not have the title for) plus additional duties. You declined this role. so what is unfair? you have made yourself redundant by declining the role.

The company is not obliged to keep you on flexable working as it is not their decision that you live 3 hours from the office.

The employee benefits package still state flexible working, and they have been happy with it for nearly 2 years, but suddenly doing the same role requires me in the office more?
I just feel the role they made redundant is not the role I was doing - therefore they are not acting within the law. This is where I'm asking for help. If its all above board, then thats fine.

If other people are willing to take a job where a minimum of £15,000 of their annual wage goes on travel and accommodation - then that's fantastic - I can't afford that much of my wage going on travel, which is why I had to turn down the role.

martinsurrey wrote: »

The situation in other locations don't matter, redundancy is a role no longer required in your current location

Does that count even when our other regions are structured on the HQ - which is where I work?

so the role with this benefit is now redundant as they need someone who is in the office more? You were offered that new office based role but turned it down?

There is no reason that this role needs to be more office based, other than their want for it - I dont think its fair that others (with line management responsibilities) are allowed the flexible working, and I'm not.

getmore4less wrote: »

Your first argument is you are not redundant as you were not doing the role that is no longer needed, was anyone actually doing that role?

They hired someone to do part of that role last year - yes. Well, 2 people. One is still there, and the other was made redundant.

getmore4less wrote: »

if no one was doing that role then your dismissal can not be attributed directly to that work ceasing as you are already doing other work.

You could suggest/argue that that job was redundant 1.5 years ago and you already have a suitable alternative, the job you are doing..

Now it comes down to the work you are doing, they seem to be saying that job no longer exists in it's current form, but is available as a potentially suitable alternative with extra duties and more work from the office.

They could argue that that is a suitable alternative and not pay redundancy as you have resigned.

they may not but if they do you will need to build a case for why it is not suitable.

Thank you. I thought that - but they have offered me the payout even though I've turned the job down.
The reason I'm asking on here is because I don't want to risk rocking the boat if they can take that away, although I've had it offered in writing, but at the same time, I feel lie I've been managed out of the company, and that, I feel is unfair.