Redundancy due to lack of work and costs BUT similar job advertised?

Superly_Vince

Hi there,

I was made redundant at the begining of the month (walking away with 3 months notice pay and redundancy package over statutory) and I am still looking for work I have first hand witnessed the industry change and in turn my workload has dropped fairly significantly.

Today I came across a job which is VERY similar to my former position, the description of work is the same as my formal role and in addition to that the description of work environment/number of colleagues is identical to where I worked formally. The only difference is, the job advertised is a part-time role.

I don't want to be come across as paranoid but gut feeling tells me is my former job being advertised. Funnily enough, with a recruitment agency which is on the next block.

I signed an Agreement stating I was happy with the terms of the redundany (citing change in the industry) and agreed to the settlement.

What if I maybe right? Do I let it go and carry on job hunting? or do I enquire as to whether or not this is true? if that is indeed the case, what can I do?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

SarEl

If it is a part-time job and yours was a full-time job, then even if it is your former job, then it isn't your former job! Because it is part-time. And in addition, any claim that the redundancy was unfair will be met by the defence "the market conditions changed since then, so we needed to recruit again" - which will pretty much work, true or not, unless the job was advertised the next day after your redundancy. Add the two together and you wouldn't really stand a prayer of proving anything, I regret to say. And if you signed a compromise agreement, which you infer you did, it wouldn't matter what you could prove because you signed away your right to make a claim. So forget it and move on is the best advice.

Superly_Vince

SarEl wrote: »

If it is a part-time job and yours was a full-time job, then even if it is your former job, then it isn't your former job! Because it is part-time. And in addition, any claim that the redundancy was unfair will be met by the defence "the market conditions changed since then, so we needed to recruit again" - which will pretty much work, true or not, unless the job was advertised the next day after your redundancy. Add the two together and you wouldn't really stand a prayer of proving anything, I regret to say. And if you signed a compromise agreement, which you infer you did, it wouldn't matter what you could prove because you signed away your right to make a claim. So forget it and move on is the best advice.

I see. I was advised of my redundancy on 2nd July,it's not even been a month.

I was really wanting to find out if my former employer could have offered me part time work/reduced my hours. But I guess not...

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

SarEl

I'm sure they could have - if your assumption is correct. But unfortunately, cases of this type are very hard to win unless you can prove that it's your job and that they have not had an increase in business suddenly. It happens all too often I am afraid, that you can't prove anything.

cte1111

Have a look on the company's own website and see if the same job is being advertised on there. If not, then I would contact the agency and ask for more details, this should help you realise if it is the same company.

If it is your job being advertised, then you have a case for unfair dismissal and there wasn't a genuine redundancy. If you were not given the option of applying for a part time version of your old job, then I think this is correct. However I'm not a solicitor, perhaps best to check with one once you've got a few more facts.

SarEl

cte1111 wrote: »

Have a look on the company's own website and see if the same job is being advertised on there. If not, then I would contact the agency and ask for more details, this should help you realise if it is the same company.

If it is your job being advertised, then you have a case for unfair dismissal and there wasn't a genuine redundancy. If you were not given the option of applying for a part time version of your old job, then I think this is correct. However I'm not a solicitor, perhaps best to check with one once you've got a few more facts.

Sorry, but this not prove that at the time of the redundancy there was a job. I have seen many of these cases - the employer simply claims that business has improved slightly since the redundancy and thats that. It can only be a matter of weeks.

Superly_Vince

cte1111 wrote: »

Have a look on the company's own website and see if the same job is being advertised on there. If not, then I would contact the agency and ask for more details, this should help you realise if it is the same company.

If it is your job being advertised, then you have a case for unfair dismissal and there wasn't a genuine redundancy. If you were not given the option of applying for a part time version of your old job, then I think this is correct. However I'm not a solicitor, perhaps best to check with one once you've got a few more facts.

They don't have a website I'm afraid. I applied for another job with the agency today prior to coming across, what I suspect, what may be my-old-job-which-isn't-my job. perhaps tomorrow I'll call the agency to enquire futher but I'll sleep on it, I may feel differently about it tomorrow.

I guess what I want to find out is, rather than offer me reduced hours/salary they choose to let me go and get someone else. As you can appreciate, I've worked there for 8 years and would have like to have thought i'd have been kept on in some form rather than being booted out in favour of someone else. It seems rather personal when you think about it and quite insulting, especially since I'd done nothing wrong, I got along with everyone and was good at what I did!

SarEl wrote: »

I'm sure they could have - if your assumption is correct. But unfortunately, cases of this type are very hard to win unless you can prove that it's your job and that they have not had an increase in business suddenly. It happens all too often I am afraid, that you can't prove anything.

I'm only asking because I've only been away from the job for barely one month and obviously there would have been a period prior to this where my role would have been under-review, I appreciate that.

I was advised of my redundany on 2nd July and I was not required to work my notice period, I effectively left the office with my belongings on 7th July. along with 3 months notice pay and redundancy pay. Now, anyone would be happy with that and be on their merry way,AND I am happy (in away, I just hate being unemployed, I love to work! All this time on my hands is not for me! LOL!) but my point is.... I was advised my role is no longer there, the company can't afford to keep me on. From now on, instead of 4 people working in the office there will now be 3. There's someone in the office who has more experience than me I was told she would remain there and take on what was left of my job, that part I understand and have absolutely no issue with.

The job being advertised requires an immediate start. Claims of a sudden surge of business would be highly suspecious don't you think? I'm not entitled to question things? It won't be hard to prove if there's a new person sitting at my old desk and the office employs 3 other people.

If I was correct, all I want to know is, why wasn't I offered the opportunity of part time work at least?

Again, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, honest!

Superly_Vince

ps, I'm not saying I'd rather work part time and not have three months pay + redundancy pay I'm just want to know why it wasn't mentioned and I was led to believe something else

SarEl

I fully understand - I have heard this sad tale many times, I'm afraid. But it is unbelieveably hard to evidence a case like this. I know, I've tried! No matter how suspect something looks, tribunals cannot operate on suspicion. Much as I am sure they would occasionally like to.

ecsb

I am in a similar siituation, I work(ed) in a school. dept restructuring, with people being interviewed and 3 of us losing jobs.
Have now found out that someone who did not go for an interview has kept her job, and agency staff booked for sept.
Am lodging a grievance complaint.
Before you are made redundant you should have been offered similar role if available.
Check out goverment website, union or acas.

Good Luck

SarEl

ecsb wrote: »

I am in a similar siituation, I work(ed) in a school. dept restructuring, with people being interviewed and 3 of us losing jobs.
Have now found out that someone who did not go for an interview has kept her job, and agency staff booked for sept.
Am lodging a grievance complaint.
Before you are made redundant you should have been offered similar role if available.
Check out goverment website, union or acas.

Good Luck

This isn't a similar situation. In your case there was an "objective selection process" which you are challenging - there was none in the OP because there was only one job (the OP's) at risk. The OP signed an agreement (a comromise agreement I suspect), saying that he was happy with the redundancy agreement- you didn't.

And the OP should have been offered any aviailable "suitable alternative" before being made redundant - but there is no evidence that a suitable alternative existed before he was made redundant.