What is redundancy?

Fran

paint wrote:

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.

But the person is still redundant!

They would have a claim for unfair dismissal.

If they have been employed for over a year.

paint

Fran wrote:

But the person is still redundant!

By virtue of the job being redundant first!

In the context of the OP's question, if the role has not been made redundant, it is likely that the OP has been sacked, not made redundant.

You can't make an individual redundant without the role first being redundant - that would be the sack. The basis for the initial decision must be on the role. The role is the deciding factor. That an individual may eventually be made redundant (or re-deployed) is a consequence.

I'm stopping here since we could go round in circles helping nobody on this one and never agree!

saintjanet

Fran wrote:

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


Free dictionary


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?

Sadly most of my information was obtained from when a member of the family was made redundant resulting in an employment tribunal.dont think it fair to go into the details here.

much of all of this is in the phrasing and like government announcements difficult to understand!!,i am simply saying that for a person to be redundant his job firstly has to be redundant,it again is made more difficult to put in perspective if many people are doing the same kind of work at one place of employment and part of this work vanishes.

That is why the afore mentioned lord winstanley began all his talks on the subject with "remember it is the job that is redundant before the person is"

sorry i really cant make this point any clearer,i rest my case!!

ManAtHome

I suppose you argue English/semantics that the role could be redundant if it vanished from the company rather than being reduced. If for instance HBos decided to stop providing credit cards, various functions within the business would be redundant (English) and the people currently providing those functions would then be made redundant (Employment law).

More usually, a company decides cut cut down a particular function (Customer Service...), so reduces the number of positions and makes some people redundant, although the CS function is still part of the business.

ohreally

Fran wrote:

It's the person being made redundant. You can't make a job redundant, it doesn't make sense

Perhaps i have been sleeping during my employment law classes. While i accept law is a dynamic subject my original answer is correct....the post is made redundant not the employee.

cheghead

Thanks for all the replies....it seems I have been redundantly sacked!

I hate the bloody job anyway and as I've only been there 3 1/2 months haven't really much option but to just accept it.

Ironically the person who did the job before me got paid more than double I am getting so I expect he will go back to doing it as there is still a job to do.

Might make a good story for the local press if this is what the NHS call cost cutting?

saintjanet

cheghead, in all the different postings i have done in this thread i forgoT to say i hope it all works out for you and you find a better job,this is the real important issue!! GOOD LUCK