Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • helmie
    • By helmie 17th Oct 16, 5:26 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    helmie
    Position readvertised
    • #1
    • 17th Oct 16, 5:26 PM
    Position readvertised 17th Oct 16 at 5:26 PM
    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.
Page 1
    • asajj
    • By asajj 21st Oct 16, 10:27 PM
    • 3,690 Posts
    • 8,098 Thanks
    asajj
    • #2
    • 21st Oct 16, 10:27 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Oct 16, 10:27 PM
    You already left I think ? Don't think there is any requirement for them to consider you for the role now.
    £2015 in 2015 / £2015

    No buying unnecessary stuff.
    Clearing out by selling on Ebay, donating to charity etc.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 22nd Oct 16, 7:37 AM
    • 26,254 Posts
    • 15,791 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 16, 7:37 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 16, 7:37 AM
    two possible scenario(there are others and combinations)

    They needed to save money and cut back too far so now need to get some help and would be happy to have someone experienced back so if you did not burn your bridges there may be a chance

    They wanted a clearout, knew it would leave them short and would have to recruit, but no way they will take anyone back.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 22nd Oct 16, 7:51 AM
    • 31,502 Posts
    • 26,167 Thanks
    custardy
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 16, 7:51 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 16, 7:51 AM
    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.
    Originally posted by helmie
    Its been over 2 years. plenty can change in that period.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 22nd Oct 16, 8:12 AM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 16, 8:12 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 16, 8:12 AM
    Its been over 2 years. plenty can change in that period.
    Originally posted by custardy
    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.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 22nd Oct 16, 8:19 AM
    • 31,502 Posts
    • 26,167 Thanks
    custardy
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 16, 8:19 AM
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 16, 8:19 AM
    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.
    Originally posted by sangie595

    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 22nd Oct 16, 9:56 AM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 16, 9:56 AM
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 16, 9:56 AM
    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks
    Originally posted by custardy
    I know. I tried to resist, but I just couldn't
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 22nd Oct 16, 10:49 AM
    • 9,133 Posts
    • 5,579 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 16, 10:49 AM
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 16, 10:49 AM
    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks
    Originally posted by custardy
    Would you not call that 29 months and 2 weeks - or just under two and a half years?
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 22nd Oct 16, 12:08 PM
    • 26,254 Posts
    • 15,791 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 16, 12:08 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 16, 12:08 PM
    Month not equal 4 weeks.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 22nd Oct 16, 1:18 PM
    • 31,502 Posts
    • 26,167 Thanks
    custardy
    Would you not call that 29 months and 2 weeks - or just under two and a half years?
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    Well I had wondered if the 10 week was a notice period or the like.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,723Posts Today

10,123Users online

Martin's Twitter