My Role was made redundant

angiebhfx

Hello

Wondered if anyone could give me some advice on this.

Brief history of the co I worked for. There where two sister companies that where bought out by a bigger co. Until recently both companies where very separate including different HO. Both companies are both separate legal entities but both are in one HO building now. Both companies operate differently and use completely different software and at present their are no plans to change the IT systems because of cost. All departments merged in so much as everyone sat together but still worked on the company they where employed by.

Out of eight people (I worked for co A, so three co A members(including myself) and 5 co B staff) I was singled out to be made redundant, despite the fact that my job was very specialised, no one knew how or what I did yet they decided my job could go. The letter that i received gave me the option to drag other members of the team into the redundancy pool but I decided not to since i figured they would score me high enough to make me go anyway. It is my belief it was personal because I stood up for myself i.e. opted back into the 48 hour working week as signing a contract meant you opted out.

I had only worked at this company for 18 months and I was not entitled to SRP, however after getting advice I negotiated 10 weeks pay and left immediately.

The letter they gave me on my departure stated that my role had been made redundant. I understand this to mean the job no longer existed but the work would be picked up by my co-workers.

I have found out today that they have employed someone to do my job. I think I can prove that they are doing my job although the burden of proof is on them.

Does anyone know if I can take them to tribunal because someone else is doing my job despite the fact I was paid out at the time?

I have had to declare myself bankrupt and have lost my house because I couldn't secure employment.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Gazella77

I hope someone more knowledgeable will give you more insight but I am being made redundant in 3 months so I've been reading all policies and talking to people and basically if they employed someone else to do your job then it's illegal and you have a very strong case! I'd go to CAB and other bodies for advice. Were you a trade union? They are usually very good.

Good luck!

withabix

How long ago were you made redundant OP?

ceridwen

jimmo wrote: »

I can’t even imagine what you must be going through right now with bankruptcy and losing your home but have you really thought about what you expect to achieve by taking your former employer to an Industrial Tribunal?
If you want your job back that is one thing but I find it hard to imagine it being a happy experience working for an employer who has been forced to reinstate you.
If you are looking for a monetary settlement will the money belong to you?
As I understand it, if an Industrial Tribunal awards you compensation the determination basically says that you were entitled to the additional money at the time that your job ended. If I am correct then your Receiver in Bankruptcy will almost certainly grab any monies arising to distribute to your unpaid creditors and you will end up with nothing.
Sorry to say this but on the presumption that you were sacked or made redundant before your bankruptcy the best person to look at that is probably your Receiver.
Tomorrow will be the first day of the rest of your life.
Let the past go and concentrate on your future.

Well - there is another way of viewing this.

There would be two benefits if O.P. went to Tribunal on this and won:
a. The moral one - justice would have been done.
b. The financial aspect of having got at least some of the money O.P. owes to his/her creditors. Even if there isnt sufficient money for O.P. to receive any of a payout themselves - then they will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have been able to give the Receiver in Bankruptcy at least some of the money that they owe these creditors.

We can only speak for ourselves here as to what we personally would do. I personally would investigate if there was any payout due to me from the ex-employer (there always used to be something stating that an employer couldnt re-employ for a post until 2 years after the last occupant of said post had been made redundant - but I've read various things that make me wonder whether this still applies or no). If I found I was still due for some money (ie the law hadnt changed on this point) - then I would pursue it in order to get what money I could towards paying off my creditors (so I had less of a "burden hanging round my head" for the rest of my life - knowing that I still had to repay those creditors if ever I had the chance to do so - even if the law stated I didnt need to because of bankrupt status).

So the answer boils down to:
- Has the law changed from that 2 year period that certainly used to be the case?
- Does O.P. accept the need to repay those creditors whenever he gets the chance to do so (or isnt bothered about being bankrupt - so therefore wouldnt put in the effort to repay money owed by him if chance is there to do so)?

EDIT: I wouldnt have come in at this point with a reply - but felt it necessary to counterbalance someone like Jimmo (who does not appear to recognise the continuing moral rights of creditors to receive their money that they are owed should chance arise - !).

Emmzi

a) depends on timescale. business needs change, it is not like they cannot employ anyone in a line of work ever ever EVER again

b) did you sign a compromise agreement?

ceridwen

Emmzi wrote: »

a) depends on timescale. business needs change, it is not like they cannot employ anyone in a line of work ever ever EVER again

b) did you sign a compromise agreement?

a. Hence the need to see if that 2 year limit still applies. Obviously at some point the employer will be able to re-fill the job - the question is exactly when? If there is still a legal timelimit within which the employer is not allowed to re-fill the job - personally I would be interested to know just how fast they re-filled it. Did they turn round and employ the current occupant of the position "by return of post" in effect - or some time later?

b. A question worth asking. Is there a compromise agreement indeed? One presumes the O.P. wouldnt be asking if there was - but a point worth making....

Edinburghlass_2

ceridwen wrote: »

EDIT: I wouldnt have come in at this point with a reply - but felt it necessary to counterbalance someone like Jimmo (who does not appear to recognise the continuing moral rights of creditors to receive their money that they are owed should chance arise - !).

Well - I'd say Jimmo has given the best advice to the OP, move on with the rest of your life, no matter what the circumstances an industrial tribune is never a pleasant thing for anyone.

getmore4less

ceridwen wrote: »

there always used to be something stating that an employer couldnt re-employ for a post until 2 years after the last occupant of said post had been made redundant -

No one has ever managed to back up any claim on time limits for filling a redundant role. (on any site i have used not just here)

Some companies/organisation might have some rules but no one has ever found any legistlation even historical.

getmore4less

I have had a look at other posts can't find the key piece of information.

When did you get made redundant?

Emmzi

there is no legislative time limit on refilling - just what is "reasonable" depends on so many variables it would be unenforceable.

ceridwen

Edinburghlass wrote: »

Well - I'd say Jimmo has given the best advice to the OP, move on with the rest of your life, no matter what the circumstances an industrial tribune is never a pleasant thing for anyone.

I am certainly well aware of that fact - ie that industrial tribunals are unpleasant. BUT...we dont know whether O.P. is trying to take her creditors out of the very unpleasant situation THEY are in by trying to get some money to repay them - in which case = good for her.:D

I would imagine O.P. is finding it a very uncomfortable situation to be in - to know that there are people in this situation because she didnt receive monies she was expecting to have herself and they have suffered the knock-on effect of this and so she may well feel that the "unpleasantness" of a Tribunal is preferable to the "unpleasantness" of having to live with owing people money. Going through a Tribunal may be the "lesser of two evils" as far as she is concerned...in which case = all power to her elbow to get this sorted out.