Made Redundant Replaced By Contractor

Si_Lurian

Hi all,


Along with 2 colleagues, I was made redundant recently with my last day of service being 31st January. As far as I can see, all procedures were followed correctly with the 3 stage process etc.


It has now come to my attention that the company have now employed not only 3 contractors this week but will be employing further temp staff next week to carry out exactly the same duties I was previously undertaking.


It is my understanding that to make me redundant, the company are in effect saying that the position is no longer required, not the employee and by employing people in exactly the same role they are breaking Employment Law.


It may well be that they are covered by some small print in the redundancy terms but before I look to take this further, can anyone confirm my thoughts, or otherwise ?


Thanks in advance.

bargainbetty

Have they employed the people directly or 'outsourced' to contractors? If they have outsourced, then the directly employed role is redundant and they have complied within the letter if not the spirit of the law.

How has this come to your attention? Do you have categorical proof that it is exactly your role that is being carried out, that there are no other differences or skill sets? Do you have statements confirming that the role was never left 'open'. Do you know that the business needs have not changed and the company is properly recruiting consultants/contractors on short term contracts because the role might be partially redundant and they cannot justify a full time person but do need temporary workers?

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you do not know the full situation, it is very hard to make any other assessments.

Si_Lurian

Thanks for the reply bb

We were a smallish team and the company concerned have just applied redundancies across the whole company (around 30%) to save costs. I know the situation because I have friends still working there who avoided the cull. The job / work is exactly the same, nothing has changed and at the time the redundancies were announced, they knew this would leave the area short staffed but seemingly, the company are now happy to employ contractors / temp staff to get the job done.

I do not know the exact terms under which the contractors have been employed but it has always been directly by the company in the past so I've no reason to presume this is any different. The temp staff are from other areas of the company so temporary in terms of filling in gaps, not temp from an employee point of view.

Are you aware of how, technically and legally, they can replace me with these employees after being made redundant ?

Thanks again

Andy_L

Si_Lurian wrote: »

It is my understanding that to make me redundant, the company are in effect saying that the position is no longer required, not the employee and by employing people in exactly the same role they are breaking Employment Law.

When they made you redundant there may well have not been enough work & thus the redundancies were justified. Since then work could have picked up & they now need more staff.

Takeaway_Addict

Since when were contractors employees? I always thought they were one or the other?

Si_Lurian

Andy_L wrote: »

When they made you redundant there may well have not been enough work & thus the redundancies were justified. Since then work could have picked up & they now need more staff.

Hi Andy, as mentioned above, the situation with the work has not changed, they knew locally that the redundancies would leave the area short staffed but had to go ahead with them anyway as it was a company not local decision.

We were struggling to hit deadlines before the redundancies hence the requirement to employ MORE staff to cover the 3 made redundant !

bargainbetty

If they are using contractors, they are not employees. If they are using temp staff, they have not replaced a permanent employee. If a company-wide cost cutting exercise was undertaken and staff have been reallocated, then that is legal and acceptable.

I'm sorry, if you want to speak to a solicitor, go ahead, but unless the people still there have an inside track to the workings of management and access to the working contracts of all the personnel, you are unlikely to have the evidence you want/need. If a consultation process was undertaken and you were made redundant, you don't have the right to go back and complain because the situation has now changed. They don't have to re-employ you.

Si_Lurian

bargainbetty wrote: »

If they are using contractors, they are not employees. If they are using temp staff, they have not replaced a permanent employee. If a company-wide cost cutting exercise was undertaken and staff have been reallocated, then that is legal and acceptable.

I'm sorry, if you want to speak to a solicitor, go ahead, but unless the people still there have an inside track to the workings of management and access to the working contracts of all the personnel, you are unlikely to have the evidence you want/need. If a consultation process was undertaken and you were made redundant, you don't have the right to go back and complain because the situation has now changed. They don't have to re-employ you.

OK, so basically, the fact they have not replaced me (us) with permanent employees means that they will get away with it. Nobody was re-allocated, all were made redundant. I was looking at the unfair dismissal angle rather than looking for re-employment.

Morally disgraceful but legally acceptable, seems to be the way with big businesses these days.

Thanks all.

Takeaway_Addict

Si_Lurian wrote: »

OK, so basically, the fact they have not replaced me (us) with permanent employees means that they will get away with it. Nobody was re-allocated, all were made redundant. I was looking at the unfair dismissal angle rather than looking for re-employment.

Morally disgraceful but legally acceptable, seems to be the way with big businesses these days.

Thanks all.

You have to accept though that during quieter times these contracters can be given the boot whereas an employee is kept on.

There is also the fact that a contractor doesn't need sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay and so on.

For some companies it makes good business sense, morally and legally

Si_Lurian

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You have to accept though that during quieter times these contracters can be given the boot whereas an employee is kept on.

There is also the fact that a contractor doesn't need sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay and so on.

For some companies it makes good business sense, morally and legally

Thanks T A, I am aware of the benefits (for the company) of contractors, I have been one myself , the issue here is one of whether they can make a permanent position redundant i.e. mine, and then bring in someone (a contractor) to do the same job.

It was my understanding that they couldn't but, as mentioned above, it seems that because they have not brought in a permanent employee to replace me, they are completely covered in what they are doing in terms of employment law.