Can they do this ?

unholyangel

SarEl wrote: »

You were porrly advised.



Your circumstances are not complex - they are in fact very straightforward. But we were always "on track" - I was correcting the misleading advice that you were giving the OP. That is "on track"

My misleading advice of telling them to get legal advice before doing anything? And that any reduction in pay or hours could be seen as breach of contract? Personally i dont see that recommending someone to get legal advice as being misleading, unless you're saying people in your line of work are entirely useless and we should never trust what someone of the law profession tells us.

And again, you said tribunals always find a substantial reduction of hours as reasonable, then go on to explain its not reasonable. Which is why i said about there being a misunderstanding or a typo.

SarEl

I am going to say this once more and then I am going to ignore you. Your advice was incorrect because you were talking about lay-offs and the OP asked about redundancy. You said that the OP's colleague was not redundant unless more than 50% of the hours were cut. They were not cutting her hours - they had already cut her post (redundancy) and offered her another job which was substantially fewer hours. My response, which is 100% correct in law, was to Gadjah's actual question - not your ramblings about something else entirely. You then went on to muse about her walking out - something that was mentioned nowhere in the OP - and then to meander around breaches of contract, something that is not relevant in relation to redundancy where the redundancy itself is the breach. The advice that you gave was based on the ability of an employer to make temporary lay-offs - you are talking about pears and everyone else here is talking about apples. I never suggested that you should not trust lawyers advice (although I would about both both CAB and ACAS) - I said that if your advice on here was what lawyers told you then the lawyers were wrong. It is clear now that the problem here is that you have taken a piece of advice given in one situation and applied it to an entirely different one. Which is misleading. You may wish to continue to ignore that fact if you want, but that does not make it correct.