interviewed for 39 hours, succesfull, now hours 22?

generaloneill

I am currently undergoing a consultation process along with my workmate, we both work in the same job and we have been told, one of these jobs needs to go.

We had to both go through a consultation process and be reinterviewed for a 39 hour role, however, having had our meeting, we were individually told we had been succesful in the interview. but it may not be full time? now we have been told that the job is only 22 hours and there are 2 of them.

There were 2 x 39 hours there to start with, considering we were interviewed for a 39 hour job, can they do this legally?

any advice will be appreciated, thanks.

getmore4less

Talk to your work mate you need to be on the same agenda.

Does one of you or both of you want to leave?

what happens currently with sick and holiday cover how is that planned going forward.

generaloneill

thanks for the reply, no one wants to leave, theyre basically trying to get rid of one of us and get the one person to do the work of 2 people. We have had no information on holiday cover and sick cover. The extra jobs we normally do will be passed on to other staff members to cover the reduction in hours.

laurel7172

I suppose...would you rather halve (ish) your hours or lose your job? It seems to me that your employer may need to let one of you go, but not have a preference as to who goes and who stays. So maybe you both need to think of this as sharing the pain until one of you finds another job.

Foggster

I dont think its illegal to change a jobs specifications until a contract has actually been issued.

By offering 2 x 22 hour jobs they are saving 35 hours and feel this is the best route to enable you both to remain in employment. After interviewing they see both of you as strong employees and want to keep you both. Sometimes its not about cutting people but cutting hours and they still need 2 bodies (albeit for a shorter time) to be available to work.

It is a tough one to advise what to do, however, it may well be a short term solution whilst you look at other jobs either in the same company or further afield.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

it seems to me (apart from the 39/22 point) that they are trying to be quite decent and offering to keep you both on.

They will probably know that you both will be looking for another job, and hopefully one of you will be lucky, which will then allow the other to get his hours increased.

If you accept the 22 hours, could you find another part time job meantime, until you find another full time job?

Good luck.

Jarndyce

[Deleted User] wrote:

Hi,

it seems to me (apart from the 39/22 point) that they are trying to be quite decent and offering to keep you both on.

They will probably know that you both will be looking for another job, and hopefully one of you will be lucky, which will then allow the other to get his hours increased.

If you accept the 22 hours, could you find another part time job meantime, until you find another full time job?

Good luck.

.

It may be true that the employer is trying to do right by both employees (yeah right), but these offers do not constitute suitable alternative employment due to the reduction in hours. The OP would be entitled to reject the offer and still expect a redundancy payment. If they want to buy time they can accept it on a four week trial period, or of course they can accept it outright - they have options.

Peelerfart

If the employer decided in 12 months that one of you really did have to go,any redundancy settlement would perhaps be based on your new 22hr weekly rate?

Just a thought.

generaloneill

Peelerfart wrote: »

If the employer decided in 12 months that one of you really did have to go,any redundancy settlement would perhaps be based on your new 22hr weekly rate?

Just a thought.

Yeah. We are thinking that, cos we have 10 years service and its a lot of money to turn down. But at the same time, we have been told.theres not 2 people supposed to be in our department, and they pull this out of the hat at the last minute.

Caroline73_2

The cynic in me says that its easier and financially better for the company to cut both your hours than to make one of you redundant.

liney

Caroline73 wrote: »

The cynic in me says that its easier and financially better for the company to cut both your hours than to make one of you redundant.

The cynic in my says that a 12 month review will find that it 'isn't working' and a 1 full time role will be created, and 1 part time redundancy will be made.