Position readvertised

helmie wrote: »

I was made redundant from a staff position after 27 months, 10 weeks ago.

I felt at the time that it was unfair dismissal, as shortly before some job titles were reorganised to leave a few of us with a common job title; then the position of that job title was abolished. (My obvious suspicion was that it allowed the managers to protect their cronies and I appealed unsuccessfully that since the same work would need to covered by the remaining positions, that there should have been a joint pooling and selection of candidates)

Now I have seen a contract position advertised through an agency as short term 'cover' for the abolished position which no longer exists but on the same contract for the same client . Also this position may be extended.

Would I be right in suspecting that this would not change the legal position and there will be wriggle room in change of circumstances, even though there is no major change in the circumstances of the company?

Also is there any requirement to consider the redundant personnel for positions. There was some unminuted discussion about perhaps need to re-recruit if the market improved (i dont think it has), however there was quite a bit of bad blood generated through the consultation and appeal process.

sangie595 wrote: »

I know my maths is really awful, but when was ten weeks the same period as two years?

Sorry OP but short term cover is not an argument for the positions not being redundant. Quite the contrary. They have probably simply made you redundant a little too quickly and they are struggling to transition.

They are not required to re-recruit you, but I think you need to decide, for your own peace of mind, whether they were unfairly dismissing you (in which case, why would you want to go back at all, even for a short time) or whether you would like a foot back in the door by applying for the position (with existing experience, you should stand a better chance, and it might lead to something longer term). You are still (just) within the period to be able to claim unfair dismissal if you wish to. But if you aren't going to, I would suggest that you let it go and accept that it is what it is. Feelings run high during any redundancy, and the "losers" always feel bad about it. Obviously. Nobody is going to blame you for that. But if you really and honestly feel that the place is a bunch of unfair and devious managers and their cronies, why would you want to work there again anyway? If, on the other hand, it was the luck of the draw and just tough luck, then you might want to think about it.

BTW - selecting people who have short service often happens. It's cheaper to make then redundant. Not the way some employers would do thinks, but, equally, it is the way more than a few think.

magpiecottage wrote: »

Would you not call that 29 months and 2 weeks - or just under two and a half years?