What is redundancy?

cheghead

Sounds like a stupid question but what exactly is made redundant: The job or the person?

I have just been made redundant (2nd time this year) but there still is work to be done. On top of this there is building work about to start to make the area that only I work in bigger. A colleague told me there is plans to take on more staff in the near future.

I've only been in the job for a few months so realise I haven't got any employment rights but this all sounds like it is me getting the push not the job itself.

I am not bothered really about leaving (just wish I could go straight away, but thats a different issue) but it is really pigging me off feeling like a 'scape goat while all the other's working there just carry on like nothing's happened.

ohreally

It's the job being made redundant, not the post holder.

kmint

Sorry to hear that.

It is always best to leave with a little amount of fuss (that part is so, so hard).

They will never change their mind on letting you go (they have decided, debated and all the stuff about laying off staff), but if they are going to employ again. (And you apply, they will remember the manner you left in, and appreciate that).

I know that it is of little comfort right now.

Kmint

Fran

ohreally wrote:

It's the job being made redundant, not the post holder.

It's the person being made redundant. You can't make a job redundant, it doesn't make sense. People are made redundant because their job goes/the company folds up/downsizing. If a company dismisses all it's employees for example, they have all been made redundant, not the company/jobs.

Nile

Hello cheghead

Have a look at this web site for information on redundancy.

Best of luck to you. I've been made redundant in the past and I know how scary it can feel.;)

Regards

Nile

paint

Fran wrote:

It's the person being made redundant. You can't make a job redundant, it doesn't make sense. People are made redundant because their job goes/the company folds up/downsizing. If a company dismisses all it's employees for example, they have all been made redundant, not the company/jobs.

I disagree. I'm pretty certain that it is the job which is made redundant, which has the by-product of making the individual in that job redundant.

My company re-structured two years ago (and is doing so again!) and several thousand roles were deemed to no longer be required under the new structure. There was a selection process to determine the individuals best suited to the roles in the new structure and the rest were let go as a result of the old job no longer existing.

The role is made redundant, not the individual (as opposed to getting the sack, where an individual is dismissed but the role remains).

I have quite a bit of experience with redundancy, having faced it 5 times in various organisations over the past 10 years (and having been made redundant once in that time)!

If the job remains after you've been 'let go', it does sound like you might be getting the push to me, not being made redundant.

saintjanet

with ref.to the post by fran it is not the person being made redundant,it IS THE JOB,this was always quoted by the late lord winstanley who was a great champion of working peoples rights.

confusion arises if there are say four people doing the same job and orders dictate that there is only enough work for three people .you are then made redundant and you think your job is still there,its not,someones job has vanished and the company can say it was yours,if you are the one they wish to make redundant.

if the company closes everyones job vanishes so you are all redundant in that case.!!

Fran

Hmm interesting question. However these sites all refer to the employer first as having been made redundant, not the job, when you look up redundancy. They start as the redundant person being redundant because of the jobs.

ACAS

Redundancy has two different meanings for the purposes of UK employment law. One to establish entitlement to redundancy payments and one for the right to be consulted.
For entitlement to redundancy payments, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy arises when employees are dismissed because:....................
For the purposes of the right to be consulted, which applies when an employer proposes to make 20 or more employees redundant over 90 days or less, the law defines redundancy as:

"dismissal for a reason not related to the individual concerned................"

TUC

Redundancy is not the same as getting the sack. The key difference is between dismissal when an individual loses his or her job, and redundancy when the job itself disappears.

Businesslink.gov

Redundancy is when you dismiss someone because:
their workplace closes
there is a diminishing need for a particular type of work

Advice online

A redundancy is a termination of employment by the employer because the employer:
does not need that job done by anyone; or
needs fewer people to do that type of job.

Citiens Advice - Adviceguide

Redundancy is a form of dismissal. Therefore, in order to claim redundancy, you must normally have been dismissed from your job. You must have been dismissed because you are genuinely redundant, see below, otherwise you will have been unfairly dismissed.

Direct.gov

Redundancy is a form of dismissal from a job. Reasons include:new technology or a new system has made your job unnecessary
the job you were hired for no longer exists
the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced
the business is closing down or moving

Law on the web

In order to claim a redundancy payment from your employer you must have been "dismissed", and this must have been "by reason of redundancy"............

saintjanet

The point is fran that the job has to have vanished before you as a person can be made redundant,otherwise i as a factory owner employing 80 people could make them all redundant,whenever and for whatever reason i wanted and take on better or cheaper people whenever i wanted

this is the difference between redundancy and the sack,again lord winstanley said this and he was an authority you and i are probably not.

i dont employ 80 people by the way!!!

Fran

I understand that the job has vanished, but a person is made redundant and the reason is that the job has gone.


Free dictionary

a. The state or fact of being unemployed because work is no longer offered or considered necessary.
b. A dismissal of an employee from work for being no longer necessary; a layoff.

I can see that the reason a person is made redundant is because of lack of a job and I can see that the job is no longer there, so really both the person and the job are redundant aren't they?

saintjanet,
Perhaps you can provide a link to some information then?

paint

Fran wrote:

I can see that the reason a person is made redundant is because of lack of a job and I can see that the job is no longer there, so really both the person and the job are redundant aren't they?

The point is that in case of redundancy, it is the role being made redundant which is the driving factor, not the individual who happens to inhabit it.

If an individual is supposedly 'made redundant' yet the role they are carrying out remains open within the organisation (as per the OP), the individual has not actually been made redundant, but has been sacked. They would have a claim for unfair dismissal.