revoked redundancy

ceridwen

Actually - I dont see the point of an employer saying "You might be redundant", "No you wont be", "Yes - you might be" in any other way than being Job Hokey Cokey, as it always has been just that in my experience personally and I've seen it happen to a lot of other people.

An employer who was playing things totally straight would surely not say any maybe/could be/wont be talk at all and the first the employee had been told was that they definitely ARE redundant. That way - theres less of the "uncertainty factor" and you know the employer isnt playing games.

If a job isnt safe then many employees will have "read the runes" for themselves in advance of having been told they will be redundant and will just be waiting for the announcement. Those of us who are in the same position as I was, for instance, ie of being quite certain redundancy/unemployment will never happen to US (until it did for the first time...:() won't "see it coming" for a first redundancy - but even we will be aware its en route to hit us in subsequent redundancies.

I certainly recall a (subsequent) redundancy and I had already realised of myself that the firm was going to make me redundant and rung up a friend and told them "they will be telling me that soon" and got poo-poohed for lack of evidence of this. They had to admit I was right when I rang them back a couple of weeks later saying "You know you didnt believe me - well......guess what they've just said to me....:cool:".

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

An employer who was playing things totally straight would surely not say any maybe/could be/wont be talk at all and the first the employee had been told was that they definitely ARE redundant. That way - theres less of the "uncertainty factor" and you know the employer isnt playing games.

Actually, employers can't read the future and thus, like to let their workforce know that things are uncertain so that they can make decisions about these things as soon as the information is out there. I'm sure with your super powers you could perhaps invest in the stock market and never work again, if you are that good at predicting what nobody else can.

anamenottaken

Were the day shift employees given At Risk letters too? If there isn't enough work to keep both day shift and night shift operational, surely staff from both shifts should be in the pool for redundancy.

I can understand that the cost of running a night shift might be higher than running a day shift but that doesn't mean that the night shift is separate from the rest of the organisation, like a separate entity: they are all in the same company and the work could be done by any of them.

If your FIL is qualified to do a job done by a day-shift person and only one such person is required, they should both be considered as potentially redundant.

getmore4less

getmore4less wrote: »

How far down the process are they. They has asked to be flexible with their end date but advised it would be towards the end of november, but they would be paid 3 months notice minus anything they worked since they had the chat at the end of the shift (last week in october)

They can't do that untill they actually give notice of termination.

Get it clarified that they are under notice of termination.

Once he thas that notice, he can them, making sure he is within the 12 weeks statutory notice, give counternotice.

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

No - they just issued an 'at risk letter'. Then, as mentioned in the OP they have now secured enough work and that the staff will not be made redundant anymore. Hence not being at risk any more.

Companies can't get it right can they? They make people redundant and are damned for it - they find more work to keep people in jobs, and are damned for it.

As above the OP claims they are treating the current work period as notice so more than just at risk.

The OP needs to clarify, this probably needs asking of the employer in writing(get writen reply) when notice started and if it has not started they eect full notice when it is not some shortened notice going back to OCT.

Sambucus_Nigra

getmore4less wrote: »

As above the OP claims they are treating the current work period as notice so more than just at risk.

The OP needs to clarify, this probably needs asking of the employer in writing(get writen reply) when notice started and if it has not started they eect full notice when it is not some shortened notice going back to OCT.

Hi.

That may be so, but they have not had a 'notice of redundancy' letter and as such, are not being made redundant. Hence, not being eligible for a redundancy payout. Which is the only thing that matters in this context as the person wants to leave and get their payout.

getmore4less

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Hi.

That may be so, but they have not had a 'notice of redundancy' letter and as such, are not being made redundant. Hence, not being eligible for a redundancy payout. Which is the only thing that matters in this context as the person wants to leave and get their payout.

BUt the employer is acting(by saying 3 months notice started end of OCt) as if they have given notice so he OP needs to get this clarified ASAP otherwise there will be another fight over notice pay