Redundancy help. Can they do this?

jack0212

I have been working for a company for 10 years. I originally started as full time but left on maternity leave and have since gone back part time in the same role (Last 2 1/2 years). After announcements I was told yesterday basically that my only option was to do one of the following:

* take redundancy
* apply again (along with others) to work in the same location but it would have to be full time
* apply to work full time in a different location.

I can't work full time. It's not an option for me as any additional money gained (plus more besides) would be swallowed by the additional childcare costs and fuel (we live 1 hour away from work). The fact that I would never get to see my daughter as I would also be expected to work 6 days a week is just unbearable.

I know redundancy is an option but I really don't want to go down this route. I enjoy my job. It is really annoying that I am not only the most experienced member of staff within my branch and am apparently "well respected", but the person that works opposite part time days to me and is in a lesser position will then go full time. I know that I am not being singled out as it has happened throughout our company but it just doesn't seem right.

Where do I stand?:(

Jarndyce

Your options seem to be the three you have set out yourself.

Its not clear why the employer is stopping you working part-time or job share in future. Have they a sound operational reason to do so? They are giving you the alternative to go full-time or if you think that is unsuitable to take redundancy, so I can't see any discrimination angle there.

You would always have the statutory right to request flexible working again if you did go full-time, but obviously that carries no guarantees. So if that is simply not an option then you are stuck with the three options above. If they don't want to accommodate you then they can't value you as much as you think you are worth, so why not just take the money and go and work for a more family-friendly employer?

an9i77

Is your role actually redundant? or are they retaining your role but saying it cannot be done part time in the new structure?

jack0212

They are saying that my role can not be done part time. They are keeping my role open nationwide but only on a full time basis. There are other full time people who are having to re-apply for their own jobs where they need to loose staff. It is basically company cut backs. I am in a sales role. Given the climate, sales have dropped over the last couple of years. Having said that, I have just had my best month for a long time. Although part time hours, my total sales are as good as a full time worker.

Jarndyce

jack0212 wrote: »

They are saying that my role can not be done part time. They are keeping my role open nationwide but only on a full time basis. There are other full time people who are having to re-apply for their own jobs where they need to loose staff. It is basically company cut backs. I am in a sales role. Given the climate, sales have dropped over the last couple of years. Having said that, I have just had my best month for a long time. Although part time hours, my total sales are as good as a full time worker.

Yes we know, but why not? Is that assertion justified?

jack0212

I am the only member of staff throughout the company who carries out the role part time. Our branch turnover decides the level of staffing ie the greater the turnover the greater the number of staff. As sales have dropped our branch is effectively 1 full time member of staff over the limit. Another colleague's hours have been reduced to 20 hours from 40 and my job is gone. Collectively this is equivalent of loosing 1 full time member of staff. The more I think about it, the more I realise that there is no real reason as to why I can't work part time apart from the fact that I am the easiest target / solution for the company.

Jarndyce

So they have reduced another member of staff from FT to PT but they are saying you can't work PT?
Just because they have to lose another half a post doesn't mean it is the part-time member of staff to go - that would be discrimination on the grounds of your PT status. Equally, by having done the job part-time you have demonstrated that it can be done on less than FT hours.

It's not clear from your OP where you are in the redundancy process - has there been a selection process yet? What is the pool and what are/were the criteria? if they are 'picking' on you on teh basis of your PT status you might be able to challenge that - we need more info to judge.

Jarndyce

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Surely though if the other person has accepted a cut in hours to 20 hours and the company needs to get another person of the books that is doing 20 hours then the part timers are the ones that will be made redundant because you can't half redundanta full timer?

If the OP has not already I would be asking the company to ask the other full time members of staff to see if any of them would offer to cut their hours.......thus part of the consultation?

I am asking this question out of interest because I don't really know.

Yes agree with your para 2. Am straying out of my comfort zone also but as far as I am aware re your para 1, that would be treating the PT worker less favourably, and so unlawful. They shouldn't be starting from here is probably the answer!

jack0212

I am so confused now. The more advice I get the more baffled I become! It is now 3 weeks on, I need to be giving the company my decision but don't want to until I have had legal advice (Booked for tomorrow morning but costing me £250). Everyone (including a couple of solicitors) has told me that I have got a case for unfair dismissal and discrimination but now a recent phone call to Acas has told me otherwise. Acas told me that as the company are making the PT job role redundant and not me because I am PT, that the company are well within their rights.

I asked the Area Manager to clarify my situation and got the following answer:

"The PT role has been made redundant due to the needs of the business. Your branch will now operate with 1 Full Time role. Both yourself and other colleague were put "at risk" of redundancy. As you told us that you were not able to consider the FT role, you were selected for redundancy and your FT colleague was taken off the process. The selection scoring process has not been carried out based on your decision not be considered for a FT role. "

In my consultation meetings I have asked to work in a different branch and job share but have been refused. The options that I have been given now are to either work full time in the same role, take a demotion and a pay cut, or take redundancy. Surely as a working mother this is classed as discrimination?

Things have changed so much within the workplace that I don't want to fight to keep my job anymore. It's not about getting money either. I just feel that this is all wrong (as I am sure everyone that goes through this process must feel)! Especially when they have refused to let me do my job role PT, but have taken on people with no experience to do the same role FT.

Any help, info or recommendations are very gratefully received.

Jarndyce

I think you need to listen to the advice of your solicitor. (Although £250 - ouch! - could you not find a free half hour one?) This is one of those problems that is not really suited to solution by message board - there are too many variations depending on your answers to certain questions.

I'm still confused about the employer's reason for not considering both you and the FT person for selection - the FT person could then have been offered half a post if selected. That could potentially be both unfair selection and also less favourable treatment on the grounds of your PT status - but as I say your solicitor will advise on that point once they are aware of all the facts.

I'd beware of cutting off your nose to spite your face though - when you say you don't want to fight for your job anymore do you really mean that? If so why spend £250 on a solicitor?

Let us know how you get on.

SarEl

Jarndyce wrote: »

That could potentially be both unfair selection and also less favourable treatment on the grounds of your PT status

And indirect sex discrimination. It doesn't matter whether they would have done the same thing to a man (impossible to test since there isn't one!) - cutting part-time roles has a disproportionate impact on women because they are more likely to be part-time workers than men are, so indirect discrimination is in the frame.