boss wants me/us to take a 50% pay cut

SomeBozo

briona wrote: »

I obviously didn't phrase that one as well as I should have!

If it's the position that's redundant – as in there is no longer a need for it – you could not make Employee A redundant from it today and hire Employee B in the same position next month. Either the post is redundant or it's not, and terminating Employee A's contract (under the guise of redundancy) to make way for Employee B would not be considered legal.

However if the company has a sudden turnaround of fortune, e.g., lands a huge contract the following month, then yes, they can re-hire in that position inside of the 6 month period but they are legally obliged to offer it to the candidate they made redundant first, in this case Employee A... hence my saying that they cannot re-hire in that position for 6 months.

Obviously if Employee A declines to take up the position, they can advertise externally and hire whoever they like.

This is incorrect. Should the business fortunes change they can re-hire, there is no obligation whatsoever to offer it to the person they made redundant.

Bozo

briona

Realistically the likelihood of a company's fortunes improving drastically within a mere month of making several staff redundant is not very likely, however I still maintain that an employer is NOT within his/her rights to re-hire in a particular position immediately after making an employee redundant. This is backed up by the info from BERR’s website (below). Getting rid of Employee A to pave the way for Employee B means that the post is not redundant, and hence Employee A has been dismissed rather than made redundant. Cue employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page15686.html#What_redundancy_means

What 'redundancy' means
You will be entitled to a payment under the Act only if the reason for your dismissal is redundancy. This means that your dismissal must be caused by your employer's need to reduce his or her workforce. Redundancy may happen because a work place is closing down, or because fewer employees are (or are expected to be) needed for work of a particular kind. Normally your job must have disappeared. It is not redundancy if your employer immediately takes on a direct replacement for you. But it will not matter if your employer is recruiting more workers for work of a different kind, or in another location (unless you were required by contract to move to the new location).

Similarly the question of whether you could make someone redundant and then hire someone else in their position was asked on the site below, and was advised against, with the warning that it would more than likely backfire on an employer at tribunal...

http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/channels/employing-staff/q-and-a/259978/making-staff-redundant.thtml

To SomeBozo: as an employer it's probably in your interest to know this or you could find yourself involved in many employment tribunals!

LittleVoice

briona -

Sadly we are off topic now but -

++ the BERR text you highlight includes the word "immediately"

++ the webpage to which you link is an opinion and uses the phrase "just officially done away with"

You have changed your references now to immediate re-hiring which is correct as it would be difficult to convince an ET the reason for dismissal was redundancy. However, neither of those quotes support the view that six months has any relevance - and "immediate" is basically no gap at all.

SomeBozo

I echo all of LittleVoices comments, you have changed your original stance now.

To SomeBozo: as an employer it's probably in your interest to know this or you could find yourself involved in many employment tribunals!

I employ lots of people who know this far better than me to do just that. And we are paid by employers to sit in tribunals to help them!

Bozo

hampsterpoo

well we have another meeting today , to find out whos agreeing I guess , which is no-one as far as Im aware , he's not supplied any other info .
I guess I'll be back on here later

bestpud

I'm not surprised nobody agrees!

If he wants to cut the wages by 50% then I assume there is less work to do, so why does he still want you all in full time?

I'd say he's trying it on. He knows cuts have to be made so he is starting form the worst scenario so any future 'concessions' appear better imo.

Either that or he wants you all to leave minus your redundancy pay.

ceridwen

...and I'm usually the one who goes "its a try-on" - but the evidence does seem to suggest this - so I agree with bestpud.

lilac_lady

It sounds as though the boss has a "grand plan" and that the workers won't benefit from it. Cutting hours is different from cutting wages. Why hasn't he just reduced the staff's working hours?