Redundancy payment based on part-time pay

Agent_C

Hi all,

I am hoping someone with a better grasp of employment law can help me out here!

I have worked for my employer for 10 years, before I went on sabbatical at the end of last year. I worked for 8.5 years full-time, but began having difficulty because of worsening of a pre-existing long-term health condition. My GP suggested I reduce my hours. I asked my employer whether this was possible, without initially involving the GP, and they said no. I then asked the GP to write a letter, which she did, and my employers subsequently agreed to reduce my hours.

Not long after this I applied for another job within the same organisation and on the same grade. The job was full time, but when I was offered it I stated that I was on reduced hours on health grounds and it was agreed that I could stay on these hours. No-one else was recruited to cover the extra hours that I was not working, nor were anyone else's hours increased to cover this.

Recently, my employer is offering everyone the chance to apply for voluntary redundancy. I applied and my request was accepted, but I have been told that my redundancy pay will only be based on my part-time salary, even though I only worked 18 months part-time and this was because of health issues and not my own choosing. I have tried to argue my case but my employers are holding firm. They say that because the job was part-time, they can only offer pay based on this. However, the job was always a full time job - and my line manager confirms this - it's just that they allowed me to work part-time because of my health. If I had left through other means, then they would have recruited to my post as full-time.

I was wondering whether I had any case under disability discrimination law. I am aware of the case of Barry v Midland Bank where a woman in my situation unsuccessfully argued that it was sex discrimination, as more women were likely to work part-time. Could I try the same argument under disability discrimination law? I am not sure whether the comparator in the case would be a person who was part-time but had no disability, or someone who was full-time without a disability who had not had to reduce their hours for this reason. Because I'm on sabbatical I have stopped my Union subs so can't get help there. Any advice gratefully received!

Uncertain

Reducing one's hours on medical grounds often does not work out very well, for exactly the reasons you outlined.

The lack of anybody to do the rest of your duties would no doubt have been reason to raise a grievence at the time. However you did change to part time so sadly I can't see much of a case here for full time redundancy pay.

Perhaps somebody else can spot a more helpful angle.

troubrs

Unfortunately redundancy calculation is based on your current hours. I worked for my Company full time for 15 years & part time for only 2 years & got redundancy based only on my part time pay.

BlueIsTheColour

The redundancy calculation is always based on your current contract and hours regardless of any previous years at a higher rate.

It could be worth a call to the EHRC to see if they can shed any light but I wouldnt hold out masses of hope, given that the employer was helping you out with the part time hours but again without knowing the details of your illness its impossible to say.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/Pages/default.aspx

Deep_In_Debt

Yep, a colleague of mine worked was made redundant after 14 years; she had worked the last 4 years part time and her redundancy money was paid on her current hours.