Redundancy due to "lack of funding" for non-funded posts.

thryth

Hi all,

Looking like I might be made redundant anytime soon. Just wondered if anyone could help with this...

My employer is stating its reason as a "lack of funding" as the excuse for making a number of us redundant but the "funds" they are citing that have been withdrawn are from a very specific stream of funding granted from the local authority and that were used to recruit and pay for 20 new members of staff a couple of years ago... Those staff were and still are referred to as being in "part-funded" posts. I have never been "funded" and have always been a permanent employee but my employer does not seem to have kept track of where this funding has been allocated and so now seems to either not to know who is "Part funded" and who is not or is simply choosing to ignore this fact... This is also despite them knowing full well that anyone with longer than two years service simply cannot be "funded". They have now placed us all "in the same pot" for redundancy...

Is this fair?

Thanks and Kind Regards.

T

SarEl

Quite possibly, yes. The source of the income is not relevant when considering a redundancy exercise. The ways in which at risk post can be idnetified are quite complex, but basically all employees have the right to be treated equally and fairly, regardless of the source of some salary payments. It's hard to give a better answer without knowing more details.