rights as an employee

anamenottaken

SarEl wrote: »

Because, as I (and a few others) keep telling people here, the law isn't that simple! There are a number of grounds upon which a tribunal may determine that a diminishment of work is not a redundancy, the most obvious one of which would be that a position for fewer working hours is not autoimatically an unsuitable alternative position.

Tribunals have always had the ability to determine that a cut in hours is not a redundancy, giving due regard to the specific circumstances of a case. It is an assumption that employers cannot reduce working hours without giving rise to redundancy - it has never been true. What is "reasonable" (the only measure that tribunals have in many of their interpretations of the law) is a social construct - what may be "reasonable" today in a recession is not the same as what may be "reasonable" in a period of high employment.

Hence you will find that those of us who deal with tribunals on a day to day basis frequently tell people that a reduction of 10% of their hours almost certainly wouldn't be a redundancy or unfair dismissal, and increasingly at this time 15-20% is considered a very dodgy claim too. It all depends on the specific circumstances. But cases as described by this poster are a long, long, way off uncommon and are deemed lawful rulings.

people often assume they have rights that they don't have - this is one of them.

Of course we don't have the full story.

I had assumed (oh dear) that when unholyangel mentioned the "business reducing its hours (was open 168 hours a week prior) by 20% (the nightshift)" it was about the people working those hours no longer having work rather than those people having other work with the employer so their total hours had been reduced not eliminated. Hence my use of "potential redundancy" and the request that more details were required in order to understand what was happening. We still don't know - unless you know the specific ET case.

SarEl

anamenottaken wrote: »

Of course we don't have the full story.

I had assumed (oh dear) that when unholyangel mentioned the "business reducing its hours (was open 168 hours a week prior) by 20% (the nightshift)" it was about the people working those hours no longer having work rather than those people having other work with the employer so their total hours had been reduced not eliminated. Hence my use of "potential redundancy" and the request that more details were required in order to understand what was happening. We still don't know - unless you know the specific ET case.

That is why I hadn't assumed that the tribunal had erred in it's judgement - because without the full story there are too many potential situations which are not redundancy

unholyangel

anamenottaken wrote: »

I don't see how a reduction in opening hours is not a diminishment in the volume of work required. If you are able to provide a reference for why this tribunal decided it wasn't a potential redundancy situation, please give it.

One of the fair grounds for dismissal is redundancy. So I don't see why the reduction in hours would be seen as a fair grounds for dismissal but not a redundancy. I think we need to know what was recorded in the case to which you refer.

I believe the words used by the ETJ was "although 3 solicitors, CAB and ACAS say this is a redundancy situation, they are just plain wrong".

The judge isnt exactly known for his accuracy though. He was also of the opinion that when someone walks off the job, they need to notify their employer in writing. And while this was the case for 1 year (around 10 years ago if i remember right, cant recall the case law references), it was overturned and thus, not applicable.

His reasoning is that the job still needed doing on dayshift. With little regard to the fact the need for work had diminished and that duties of nightshift employees varies from that of its dayshift counterpart.

unholyangel

SarEl wrote: »

Because, as I (and a few others) keep telling people here, the law isn't that simple! There are a number of grounds upon which a tribunal may determine that a diminishment of work is not a redundancy, the most obvious one of which would be that a position for fewer working hours is not autoimatically an unsuitable alternative position.

Tribunals have always had the ability to determine that a cut in hours is not a redundancy, giving due regard to the specific circumstances of a case. It is an assumption that employers cannot reduce working hours without giving rise to redundancy - it has never been true. What is "reasonable" (the only measure that tribunals have in many of their interpretations of the law) is a social construct - what may be "reasonable" today in a recession is not the same as what may be "reasonable" in a period of high employment.

Hence you will find that those of us who deal with tribunals on a day to day basis frequently tell people that a reduction of 10% of their hours almost certainly wouldn't be a redundancy or unfair dismissal, and increasingly at this time 15-20% is considered a very dodgy claim too. It all depends on the specific circumstances. But cases as described by this poster are a long, long, way off uncommon and are deemed lawful rulings.

people often assume they have rights that they don't have - this is one of them.

In this particular case I refer to, the claimant's hours were being reduced from 35 over 5 days to 14 over 5 days and also included the loss of Tax Credits due to the reduction. There were 2 nightshift workers. But the claimant was the only full time one.

LittleVoice

unholyangel wrote: »

In this particular case I refer to, the claimant's hours were being reduced from 35 over 5 days to 14 over 5 days and also included the loss of Tax Credits due to the reduction. There were 2 nightshift workers. But the claimant was the only full time one.

So a 60% reduction and possibility of those hours not providing an opportunity to mitigate losses by finding other work to make up the shortfall.
(Tax Credits not, of course, a consideration for the employer.)

SarEl

unholyangel wrote: »

I believe the words used by the ETJ was "although 3 solicitors, CAB and ACAS say this is a redundancy situation, they are just plain wrong".


His reasoning is that the job still needed doing on dayshift. With little regard to the fact the need for work had diminished and that duties of nightshift employees varies from that of its dayshift counterpart.

Then either there is something that we don't know about the case, or the solictors are appealing the case? I could happily accept that CAB or ACAS - especially ACAS - erred, nut would be surprised if three solcitors all got it wrong.

ILW

SarEl wrote: »

The trial was a "foregone conclusion"? I presume that means the defendant(s) were not guilty? Because the only foregone conclusion in a criminal trial is that the defendant(s) are innocent.

This being a given, the role of the barristers is to argue the case so that the jurors are able to establish whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges have little patience with barristers wasting the time of the court, but they do have a responsibility to ensure that every person who appears before them obtains a fair and objective hearing based on the evidence and all legal argument. It's one of those annoying little things called a human right.

If the jurors had decide guilt within a few hours and considered the rest of it a waste of their time, then it was the jurors who were not doing their jobs - not the barristers.

It was not guilty, there was no firm evidence whatsoever. The jury decision was unanimous within half hour of retiring. Oddly most thought that the defendant was probably guilty but there was no proof.
Think the jury got it right, the barristers probably got three or four grand each.

unholyangel

SarEl wrote: »

Then either there is something that we don't know about the case, or the solictors are appealing the case? I could happily accept that CAB or ACAS - especially ACAS - erred, nut would be surprised if three solcitors all got it wrong.

Yes, they're appealing. Technically 4 solicitors as CAB checked with their solicitor who deals with employment law before issuing advice.

If the same ETJ hears the appeal, I can't imagine a different outcome though. For all intents and purposes his attitude of what the outcome would be was made plainly clear throughout the case.

Including accusing the claimant of saying things they hadn't and changing their story - even though the panel members were openly telling him he was wrong.

SarEl

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes, they're appealing. Technically 4 solicitors as CAB checked with their solicitor who deals with employment law before issuing advice.

If the same ETJ hears the appeal, I can't imagine a different outcome though. For all intents and purposes his attitude of what the outcome would be was made plainly clear throughout the case.

Including accusing the claimant of saying things they hadn't and changing their story - even though the panel members were openly telling him he was wrong.

If it is subject to appeal (not review) them it goes to the EAT, who are different people entirely. But I am confused - if this was heard my a panel - 3 judges - and two of them were telling the judge that he was wrong, why did they not siply outvote him? On a panel hearing it is a majority decision. Or are you referring to something else as the panel? The system in Scotland is not all that different from the one in England and Wales.

zagfles

SarEl wrote: »

I am afraid that he is not alone and nor is he "incorrect" in his interpratation of the law or the way it is applied in tribunals. Zagfles definition was simplistic at best, and therefore, like many simplifications, just wrong.

Zagfles appears to derive his/her practical expertise of employment law and tribunals from the Conservative manifesto and the tabloid press, from the sinecure of an employment which appears to have the benefit of a relatively strong union base. There is a very different view to be derived from those people who actually have to use the tribunal system. One can only hope that Zagfles doesn't get disabused of their notions the hard way

What a hypocrite you are. You get all huffy when someone else makes assumptions about you, then make you all sorts of assumptions about me.

I get my information from my union (who believe it or not have no affiliation to the Conservative party, nor get their information for the tabloid press), plus about 25 years of experience as an employee of large companies, and several redundancy situations where I've been put as risk and several friends/colleagues have been made redundant. Some of that time I've worked in places where the union has been very weak or even non-existant, in one situation the management were trying to make changes to our T&Cs, and our small group (about 20 of us) successfully challenged them with almost no union help at all.

The vast majority of employee/employer disagreements get sorted out without resort to tribunals/courts. So I suspect a barrister specialising in employment issues would get a very warped view of what happens in workplaces, as they only see the extremes.