Redundancy help...

RichPyke

A friend of mine was told she is to be made redundant a couple of days ago. They have offered her more than the minimum payout so all that is fine however...

1. There is a vacancy at the company but she has been told she needs to apply for it. Is this unfair dismissal as she could be redeployed

2. If she applies for it, and gets it, is it classed as being redeployed or should she still get her redundancy package?

3. Is it true that if you are made redundant then the company offers you your job back during the notice period that they have to still pay out the redundancy package? (not linked to this but something I was told and can't find much on).

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

hcb42

If her position has been made redundant, then they will look for redeployment, and if she can be redeployed, there would not be any redundancy payment

Sounds like she doesnt want the new job, would rather have the package...how suited is she to the new role?

zzzLazyDaisy

RichPyke wrote: »

A friend of mine was told she is to be made redundant a couple of days ago. They have offered her more than the minimum payout so all that is fine however...

1. There is a vacancy at the company but she has been told she needs to apply for it. Is this unfair dismissal as she could be redeployed

The employer is obliged to look for and offer employment as an alternative to redundancy if this is possible. However, if there are other employees also facing redundancy, then it is reasonable for the employer to say they all have to apply for the job, and they will then make a decision on who to offer the job to. Of course she does have to have the necessary skills and experience to do the job.


2. If she applies for it, and gets it, is it classed as being redeployed or should she still get her redundancy package?

She would remain in employment with the same employer and her length of service would continue unbroken. She would not be redundant, and she would not be entitled to a redundancy package


3. Is it true that if you are made redundant then the company offers you your job back during the notice period that they have to still pay out the redundancy package? (not linked to this but something I was told and can't find much on).

No. It is not true. The employee remains in employment until the last day of service, and if things change to the extent that they are no longer redundant, and instead continue in employment with the company, then they are not entitled to a redundancy package

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

In simple terms. Either her employment terminates by reason of redundancy and she is then out of work and entitled to a redundancy package.

Or it doesn't..... and she isn't.

hth

Daisy

RichPyke

Thanks, I guess I have been misinformed. Very helpful!

However, and I don't know if this makes any difference but, the current vacancy is a job she was told she would be moving to (basically the whole moving to a different department deal) before redundancy was mentioned. I don't think she has anything in writing about that however, if that's the case then would it not be unfair to make her redundant and make her and the other one redundancy apply (plus external interest I believe)?

Hope that makes sense? Basically... Can they advertise this one job in the paper for any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry to apply for while at the same time "overlooking" it for redeployment of an employee (very similar job to what she does now) and saying she has to apply for it?

I found some stuff about going back to the same employer after redundancy earlier while searching which confused me. Do I have it right that if she applied for this job, it took longer than her notice period for a decision, then, say 2 weeks after she became unemployed she got the job, would there be any tax implications etc.?

P.S. It's not a case that she doesn't want this job. She doesn't want to be unemployed, like most decent people wouldn't! It's a case of seeing if 1, the company is doing things by the book and 2, if what I have been told by people who *think* they know stuff is right.

zzzLazyDaisy

RichPyke wrote: »

Thanks, I guess I have been misinformed. Very helpful!

Hope that makes sense? Basically... Can they advertise this one job in the paper for any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry to apply for while at the same time "overlooking" it for redeployment of an employee (very similar job to what she does now) and saying she has to apply for it?

They are not overlooking it for redeployment. They are saying that she and the other person who is faced with redundancy both have to apply for the vacancy. If she does apply, is unsuccessful, and ends up being made redundant, that is the time to consider whether it is an unfair dismissal. There is no point in going through all the 'what ifs' in advance. Until she knows the outcome of the interviews, there isn't any point in speculating.


Do I have it right that if she applied for this job, it took longer than her notice period for a decision, then, say 2 weeks after she became unemployed she got the job, would there be any tax implications etc.?

To answer your question - if she is made redundant she should receive her redundancy package. Provided there is a break in employment of at least one week, including two saturdays, then if she gets the new job, she would start on a completely fresh contract, with no continuity of service. In that situation she would keep her statutory redundancy pay, but any additional company redundancy pay may be subject to conditions, a common one of which is that if you return to work for the company within a given time period you may have to repay some or all of the additional money. However, this is unlikely to happen because in that situation the employer is expected to look for possible alternative employment as an alternative to redundancy.

Is she in a union? If so she should be asking the union rep about these things.

At the moment the employer is going through the process. So far they don't seem to have done anything wrong. I agree that allowing outsiders to apply when they have employees facing redundancy might not appear to be the best way forward - but it is quite possible that their procedures state that all vacancies must be externally advertised, even though preference will often be given to in-house applicants. Without knowing all the details it is a waste of time speculating.

If she ends up out of work, and is not happy about the way the potential alternative employment issue was dealt with, that is the time to raise these issues.