Made redundant for refusing 3 day week, and immediately re-engaged on 3 day week?

LittleVoice

ceridwen wrote: »

EDIT: See O.P.'s employer intends to make them redundant - rather than dismiss them (ie employer has already realised this is too major a change of conditions to take the risk of dismissing them and having a Tribunal say it was unfair).

Redundancy is one of the fair grounds for dismissal. It's a dismissal.

ceridwen

I think possibly legally-speaking redundancy can be called "dismissal" - but basically dismissal is something that happens to the person themselves (eg because they've done something wrong) and redundancy is something that happens to the job that person has (ie that position is redundant - though the person themselves has done nothing wrong).

I guess thats where the DWP would differentiate, for instance, as to whether benefits were payable right away - with redundancy they obviously would be. With dismissal - they would start looking into what the person themselves had "done wrong" to see whether to impose a benefit disqualification.

Over the course of my working lifetime for instance - I have had one dismissal (sacked for not being able to do the job - which was down to them not telling me at interview that it involved skills I know I dont have, so I wouldnt have taken it) and various redundancies (because my job no longer existed).

It does make it confusing that a redundancy can be called "dismissal" - because that implies its something to do with the person themselves.

walmer3

Just posting by way of an update for anyone interested in my particular case.

It was a genuine redundancy situation. on the grounds that the four day (or even full time) position was no longer available because of the need for cost-cutting. I got the notice of redundancy because I didn't accept the 3 day week terms.

The mention of re-engagement on the 3 day week terms was a nod to legislation (whereby if an offer of a reasonable alternative is made, the amount of redundancy payment can be reduced or totally withheld). But they didn't really have much expectation that the offer would be accepted. They also admitted tthat it wouldn't really be considered a reasonable alternative. Anyway it turns out that I'm getting a healthier-than-statutory payout so all in, it's worked out better than might have been expected. Apart from not knowing yet what I'm going to be doing for a living, that is.

Thanks to everyone who was helpful and interested enough to offer advice. I also can't stress highly enough how useful legal cover is as part of any insurance you might have (eg home cover). The legal helpline which comes with my insurance has been really helpful.

ceridwen

Walmer - Thanks for update. Good luck in the future. I totally agree with you about having legal advice/assistance as an "add-on" to your home insurance policy. It doesnt cost much - round about £15/£20 pa in my case - and well worth having for the peace of mind. I have found the advice given by these services can be a bit "variable" shall we say - but it gives some idea and, ultimately, the wherewithal to bring a legal claim should that be necessary and your Union isnt that co-operative.

cmn1977

Walmer, thanks for the update and am sorry for kinda hijacking your thread.

I got the letter yesterday asking for voluntary redundancies, or any other options etc. Managed to get today off to try and get through to ACAS and get as much info from the CAB as possible. Any important questions I should ask?
Wish me luck!

C

SailorSam

I agree with ceriwden about your continuous employment, i think if you were to accept a pay off your employment would begin again.
The way companies are cutting back i think a lot more people will have to accept a reduction in working hours or lose their job completley, it is'nt nice but it may become a fact of life. So if you can get a pay off of several thousand and still have some sort of work, it may be a good deal.
Something else you should consider, where do you stand on benefits ?
If you go to sign on, and you have redundancy pay in the bank they may be reduced, you may not even get any.
If at some time in the future you lost your 3 day job, obviously you will not get any redundancy (you have not been there long enough). So when you sign on, if you have already spent the origional redundancy monies they cannot be included in your income and you get more in benefits.

SailorSam

Another thought on benefits, if you were only going to be working three days, so earning less money, are there any top up benefits you may be entitled to ?
I'm sure someone will be able to tell you

cmn1977

I was hoping that the CAB would help with the benefit side of things as well as redundancy, but now my phone isn't working, and got little credit on mobile!

I just can't believe how things are just getting worse and worse, thought 2009 might have been better for me, but not so far eh! On the up side my parents live down the road so will go and use their phone!

Will keep everyone informed!

McKneff

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out but redundancy payment is worked out on your own weekly wage up to a maximum of £330 and not a level
payment of £330 per week

getmore4less

One thing to point out is that loads of people return to the same employer after being made redundant, the time period varies but it is possible to have the redundancy cake and still be employed.

When working for a company that offers better than stat redundancy making sure you get out while they can still pay it is something to consider, the last lot out often get nothing.

Another option open is compenation for a change in contract if the company wants to reduce your terms and to put into the new contract preservation of any service so far, so a future redunacy based on say 4 years at a full time and any future years accumulating at the part tme rate.

You also want all restriction on working for others especialy competitors removed in any part time contracts