Made Redundant in Error?

Lonyn

My wife has been made redundant which although upset accepted the reason for it.

She has sign all the papers, which has been looked at by her union who agreed that everything was in order.

She has been told her final work day and her final sum she would be collecting.

Now about one month later her line manager has resign and been replaced, his replacement has asked my wife if she has train up some one to continue her job after she has left.

My wife is furious she e-mailed this person saying but surely if you want me to train some one to do my job, my job is not redundant and so I should still have a job.

Its been a week now and they have not replied to her e-mail, she has gone to her union who has said she should send them a grievance letter.

I just wondered what happens if they have made her redundant in error after she has signed all the papers and agreed a final figure payment?

Emmzi

key question - did she volunteer for redundancy? VR is very different from compulsory.

If compulsory, I'd say she has a very good case. BUT they may only want her to train a handful of tasks - the bulk of the job may still be gone.

Lonyn

No she did not volunteer for redundancy.

The job is still there in full and worth 1.5 million a month to the company and they are still keeping very quiet and not responding to her e-mails to them.

They have definetly !!!! up here, the union have said they will try and say only part of the job is gone, but she knows that no part of the job has gone.

The original reason the line manager said was it was being transferred to the HQ finance team who have since said they are not doing it.

Anihilator

That is a genuine business reason though.

The organisation only need to show a genuine business reason existed, they can do this as the role was moving, subsequent plans made it different.

Why doesnt your wife ask for the job back?

Lonyn

Anihilator wrote: »

That is a genuine business reason though.

The organisation only need to show a genuine business reason existed, they can do this as the role was moving, subsequent plans made it different.

Why doesnt your wife ask for the job back?

Well the job is a lot more involved than the line manager imagine so by saying HO Finance team will do it, they have looked at the job and realised they cannot do it.

People have tried to do the job and found it far to stressful and have taking as much as 6 months off to get over it.

The new line manager now realises this, HR who has been involved from the start are wriggling saying that individual people can do bits of it. My wife knows that this would be impossible as it needs one person to collate all information and then make sense of it.

My wife finishes work on 31st December which is when the next collation is required she appears to be getting a migraine for about that date.

Regarding why doesn't she ask for her job back, would you work for some one who has sacked you for no reason.

This does appear to me as "Unfair dismissal" or "constructive dismissal" but I am not a lawyer which is why I was hoping for some advise from these forums.

sarah_elton

Constructive dismissal = you resign because you felt you had no choice but to do so (company makes your life hell).

Unfair dismissal = you're sacked without sufficient grounds or without proper process being followed.

Neither is the case here. Redundancy law is separate to dismissal.

I'm not sure that your wife having to train someone on her work means it's not a redundancy situation. The tasks may still have to be done but the company may feel the workload of them has shrunk to the point where one person can now do what two people were doing before, if you see what I mean.

Anihilator

Lonyn wrote: »

Well the job is a lot more involved than the line manager imagine so by saying HO Finance team will do it, they have looked at the job and realised they cannot do it.

People have tried to do the job and found it far to stressful and have taking as much as 6 months off to get over it.

The new line manager now realises this, HR who has been involved from the start are wriggling saying that individual people can do bits of it. My wife knows that this would be impossible as it needs one person to collate all information and then make sense of it.

My wife finishes work on 31st December which is when the next collation is required she appears to be getting a migraine for about that date.

Regarding why doesn't she ask for her job back, would you work for some one who has sacked you for no reason.

This does appear to me as "Unfair dismissal" or "constructive dismissal" but I am not a lawyer which is why I was hoping for some advise from these forums.

It is neither.

It is a myth that companies can't employ someone to do a job they make redundant. All they need to show is at the point of the redundancy there was a real business reason that made the position redundant (i.e concrete plans to take it too H.Q)

After this point the company can legitimately change their mind as long as its all done in the course of real business decisions.

You and your wife clearly arent happy but I dont think legally they have done anything wrong and your argument may actually strengthen their position as it looks like they made a business decision then discovered it couldnt work and went back.

Tbh if your wife doesnt want the job back she should take the redundancy and move on happy. I dont see what else you want or are entitled too.

timmmers

She hasn't actually left has she?
So her job can't have either...and isn't going to anytime soon if she's being asked to train someone to do it?

They seem to have imagined they could get rid of it and realised they weren't going to be able to.

I wonder what they will say of she says "No, I don't need to train anyone to do that job, it's going...or transfering elsewhere" ?

Training someone else to do a job that you can't do because it's no longer existing at that location...that makes zero sense. At the very best she was given false information and accepted redundancy based on that...at worst it's put her in a bad spot, put her under stress etc for someone else's huge mistake, or lie.

Any decent union rep will wipe the flor with this.

t

timmmers

Anihilator wrote: »

It is neither.

It is a myth that companies can't employ someone to do a job they make redundant. All they need to show is at the point of the redundancy there was a real business reason that made the position redundant (i.e concrete plans to take it too H.Q)

After this point the company can legitimately change their mind as long as its all done in the course of real business decisions.

You and your wife clearly arent happy but I dont think legally they have done anything wrong and your argument may actually strengthen their position as it looks like they made a business decision then discovered it couldnt work and went back.

Tbh if your wife doesnt want the job back she should take the redundancy and move on happy. I dont see what else you want or are entitled too.

Not a single word of that is accurate or helpful. As usual.

Dec 31st she leaves...the next day someone else does the exact same job at the exact same place....how is that redundancy? It isn't.

The job isn't gone, she's still doing it...someone will be doing it continuously assuming she can train them up to do her work.

Do you think it's legal or some kind of legit business practice to tell an emloyee that you are removing, reducing or relocating their job and then just give it to someone else when they have left based on the BS you just fed them?

Contructive dismissal could cover this at a push...they lied to her and treat her so badly she doesn't want to stay even if they offer.

Wrongful is more the case...they should have admitted their error and put it right instead of what they actually have done. Their error..she's paying for it. She did nothing wrong to cause any of it.

t

mikey72

Anihilator wrote: »

It is neither.

It is a myth that companies can't employ someone to do a job they make redundant. All they need to show is at the point of the redundancy there was a real business reason that made the position redundant (i.e concrete plans to take it too H.Q)

After this point the company can legitimately change their mind as long as its all done in the course of real business decisions.

You and your wife clearly arent happy but I dont think legally they have done anything wrong and your argument may actually strengthen their position as it looks like they made a business decision then discovered it couldnt work and went back.

Tbh if your wife doesnt want the job back she should take the redundancy and move on happy. I dont see what else you want or are entitled too.

Yet again, wrong and advocating giving up.
Phone acas, get correct advice, and ensure the employer knows you will take them to a tribunal at the final interview.

zzzLazyDaisy

mikey72 wrote: »

Yet again, wrong and advocating giving up.
Phone acas, get correct advice, and ensure the employer knows you will take them to a tribunal at the final interview.

Be careful. The redunancy can be withdrawn at any time up to the date of termination. So that, if, for example, the situation changes while the person is working their notice, then they are no longer redundant, and the redundancy can be withdrawn perfectly legitimately.

If OP's wife actually wishes to take the money and leave, then she should do so. If she wishes to continue working for them, and NOT get the payoff, then she should fight her corner hard, now. She needs to decide what she wants, before she goes shooting herself in the foot.

If after she has left, they do in fact appoint a new person to do her job then it might be that she has a case for unfair dismissal (on the grounds that this was not a genuine redundancy situation). But maybe her job is going to be absorbed into the role of someone who currently works for the company. Or maybe she is being bumped, to save another person. The chances are that things won't become clear until after she has gone. But in that case she still has three months to consider her position.