Made redundant, then replaced

Tippytoes

Hi

If your former employer did not follow proper "procedures" (which sounds probable) you may have been unfairly dismissed. I would suggest you phone ACAS, but a word of warning. A friend of mine was recently made redundant and she contacted ACAS. The person she spoke to fobbed her off, so she went to her local Citizens Advice Bureau. They helped sort her out and she ended up taking her former employer to an employment tribunal - and won.

I'm not saying ACAS is a waste of time, but I do think that they are a bit over-stretched at the moment. Please be aware that there is a time limit for going to tribunal, so start the wheels rolling now.

Good luck.

Ewarwoowar2

m3rry wrote: »

The other employee was not in the pool for redundancy. No scoring took place.

In that case, you probably have a good claim for unfair dismissal. It's worth about 6 - 7 week's wages, becuase you have 5 years' service. It will be worth more if you can demonstrate to the tribunal that if the company had followed a fair procedure you would not have been dismissed (which will be difficult).

Have a look at your home contents insurance to see if you have legal expenses cover for tribunal claims. It may fund a solicitor. If not, have a word with ACAS, the citizen's advice bureau, or maybe a free emoployment law clinic.

Remember you'll have to bring a claim within three months of the date your employment ended.

Anihilator

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

In that case, you probably have a good claim for unfair dismissal. It's worth about 6 - 7 week's wages, becuase you have 5 years' service. It will be worth more if you can demonstrate to the tribunal that if the company had followed a fair procedure you would not have been dismissed (which will be difficult).

Have a look at your home contents insurance to see if you have legal expenses cover for tribunal claims. It may fund a solicitor. If not, have a word with ACAS, the citizen's advice bureau, or maybe a free emoployment law clinic.

Remember you'll have to bring a claim within three months of the date your employment ended.

This is not necessarily true.
You are assuming the OP was got rid of simply to accomodate the junior person. This isnt necessarily true. It could be they simply couldnt justify a senior FT role and bumped a bit of the work to a junior colleague.

This would be allowable.

The OP needs to firstly appeal the redundancy in the first place although it might be a bit late for that and get their version of events then seek legal advice.

dickydonkin

Anihilator wrote: »

This is not necessarily true.
You are assuming the OP was got rid of simply to accomodate the junior person. This isnt necessarily true. It could be they simply couldnt justify a senior FT role and bumped a bit of the work to a junior colleague.

This would be allowable.

The OP needs to firstly appeal the redundancy in the first place although it might be a bit late for that and get their version of events then seek legal advice.

If you took the time to read thoroughly what Ewarwoowar2 was referring to from the OP's comment below:

The other employee was not in the pool for redundancy. No scoring took place.

Ewarwoowar2 has correctly suggested (below) that if the PROCEDURE was flawed 'pre dismissal' by virtue of not implementing a selection pool, then the whole process could be deemed a sham.

your employer should have consulted with you/your union before the process began and they should have objectively assessed you and the junior for the remaining job.

Ewarwoowar2 was not referring to the outcome and consequences of the dismissal, but the potentially flawed procedure leading up to it.

Tippytoes

dpassmore wrote: »

If you took the time to read thoroughly what Ewarwoowar2 was referring to from the OP's comment below:

Ewarwoowar2 has correctly suggested (below) that if the PROCEDURE was flawed 'pre dismissal' by virtue of not implementing a selection pool, then the whole process could be deemed a sham.



Ewarwoowar2 was not referring to the outcome and consequences of the dismissal, but the potentially flawed procedure leading up to it.

Agree with what you say. I do wish some contributors on these boards would refrain from commenting when (in their haste to get their voices heard) either don't read posts properly or simply don't know what they're talking about.

m3rry

An update. After repeated chasing, I finally got the letter confirming redundancy today (having left on 19 February...). I'm appealing the decision - I've been told that my role is "no longer in the organisational structure" but the role that's disappeared is actually the junior role. At the very least I feel that both of us should have been considered for redundancy. We'll see what happens...

What's the "6-7 weeks pay" based on? (I actually have seven years service). It strikes me that if that's the best outcome I can hope for then it won't make any difference - I was given a better-than-statutory payout, which I believe would be taken into account for any compensatory award, and (off the top of my head) I think that'd mean no additional award at all. Is that how it works?

Many thanks for all the helpful replies. Very much appreciated

Debt_Free_Chick

m3rry wrote: »

What's the "6-7 weeks pay" based on? (I actually have seven years service). It strikes me that if that's the best outcome I can hope for then it won't make any difference - I was given a better-than-statutory payout, which I believe would be taken into account for any compensatory award, and (off the top of my head) I think that'd mean no additional award at all. Is that how it works?

Basically, yes. It's only worth going to Tribunal if the award is greater than what you've received.

Many employers simply pay you an amount roughly in line with the Tribunal award, simply to give you little/reason to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. Which is, of course, the right thing to do. It's a way of saying "sorry, we've not done right by you, but here's the cash compensation anyway".

m3rry

OK. Any way of getting an idea of what the potential award would be?

Going4TheDream

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Basically, yes. It's only worth going to Tribunal if the award is greater than what you've received.

Many employers simply pay you an amount roughly in line with the Tribunal award, simply to give you little/reason to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. Which is, of course, the right thing to do. It's a way of saying "sorry, we've not done right by you, but here's the cash compensation anyway".

I agree fully with this , a similar thing happened to me after 11 years. I made a joke to HR about being paid off and they agreed in a subtle way. NO matter what laws are put in place to protect us little people companies will always be able to get round them and they know it. You have to weigh up whether the principal is important enough to you to fight (and maybe lose) when you need to be focusing time looking for another role as tribunals are hard work, and principle dont feed us! The old saying a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush springs to mind no matter how it sticks in the craw under these circumstances. Good luck which ever way you choose to go

CBR

I do sympathise. Very much the same happened to myself.

Made redundant and replaced by the Office Managers sister three days later. The Office Manager herself then went onto maternity leave three months later and another member of staff was taken on to cover the maternity.

I walked away from the situation with somewhat of a sigh of relief but I do feel that you should stand your ground and try and fight your cause if you believe your redundancy is incorrect.

Good luck