We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Tupe and redundacy

2»

Comments

  • simpav
    simpav Posts: 50 Forumite
    Thank you for your responses.

    Yes Bigcammy your interpretation is correct. Basically a whole area of the business was offshored for no other reason than to save money.

    I now believe that the offshore person is still in the UK, doing the job.

    The question is at what point ca I say that he role was never redundant as the company could say that they are still training the person. Is it a day after my leaving date, a week after......
  • getmore4less
    getmore4less Posts: 46,882 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    simpav wrote: »
    Thank you for your responses.

    Yes Bigcammy your interpretation is correct. Basically a whole area of the business was offshored for no other reason than to save money.

    I now believe that the offshore person is still in the UK, doing the job.

    The question is at what point ca I say that he role was never redundant as the company could say that they are still training the person. Is it a day after my leaving date, a week after......

    Which country did the worker come from that will be taking over the role and did they need visas?

    Were you offered the job in the new location.
  • LittleVoice
    LittleVoice Posts: 8,974 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Bigcammy wrote: »
    I think what the OP means is that the company intended sending the work overseas. An overseas employee was brought to the UK to learn the job before returning to his/her original country to carry on the work he has just learnt. In this case, it sounds like the overseas employee is now staying in the UK to carry out this work, meaning that the OP has effectively been replaced in the UK by the overseas employee instead of his work being offshored.

    Am I correct in my interpretation.

    In this case, I reckon the OP has a case because he was losing his job due to offshoring, but that never happened and he's simply been replaced.

    Yes, that was my understanding. My post was intended to suggest that it was not an acceptable "other substantial reason" for the dismissal which had occurred. If the job does go abroad, it is redundancy, not "other substantial reason" which someone had suggested.

    I also wondered about the working visa possibility which has also been raised.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.