Job created then made redundant

harkin_c

Hi everyone,

Less than 2 years ago the company I work for decided to amalgamate some functions and make 1 role (which I applied for internally and got - woop). They have now told me the role is being made redundant as it can be done by other people in the business.

Well yes it can, it was before they created my job. But if they hadn't created the job I would still be in my previous non-redundant job.

This seems unfair to me, the company seems to have decided they have made a mistake amalgamating the functions but I don't think I should be one the one to suffer? I'm assuming it is just morally not legally unfair. Has anyone else experienced a similar situation?

Thanks

kiddy_guy

Unfortunately what they are doing is perfectly fair. (Legally )

harkin_c

Thanks Kiddy Guy.

Do you think that I have a case to say it is hard to defend a redundancy risk when I was never given a job description? I.E. I have no description of the job so I can't easily say whether the job should exist or not?

Clutching at straws I know

sangie595

harkin_c wrote: »

Thanks Kiddy Guy.

Do you think that I have a case to say it is hard to defend a redundancy risk when I was never given a job description? I.E. I have no description of the job so I can't easily say whether the job should exist or not?

Clutching at straws I know

It isn't up to you to say whether the job should exist or not though - it is up to the employer. But no. There is no requirement to provide a job description, but I assume you know exactly what the job is, unless you want to argue that you haven't been doing anything for two years?

Unfortunately, the employer appears to have decided that the role is no longer viable. Things may have changed, or maybe it didn't work out. And it's bad luck. But to be honest I don't think it is wrong at all, not even morally. Unless all redundancy is immoral, which is a bit of a stretch. If you want to play "what if" scenarios, if you hadn't got this role, in the last two years you might have got fed up of your job and moved on - to another job or even another employer. And the same thing could have happened, except that if you had moved employers you wouldn't have any redundancy rights or entitlements. It isn't realistic to expect that nothing changes and that employers must keep every job they have.

motorguy

harkin_c wrote: »

Thanks Kiddy Guy.

Do you think that I have a case to say it is hard to defend a redundancy risk when I was never given a job description? I.E. I have no description of the job so I can't easily say whether the job should exist or not?

Clutching at straws I know

Are there any other roles you could apply for internally?

getmore4less

You could look at bumping if you can justify why someone else should go.

Mersey_2

sangie595 wrote: »

But no. There is no requirement to provide a job description

This is incorrect.


Employers are legally required to provide employees with a written statement within 2 months of starting work. [I realise many don't]


It should include: Pay, Hours, Location, Job Description, Holiday entitlement.


www.gov.uk/employment-contracts-and-conditions/written-statement-of-employment-particulars


You can raise a grievance re this if you wish to. The link has more details including proceeding to Tribunal and the 4 weeks' pay as compensation for this breach. [But it's very rare - claimants tend to just add this failing to other breaches an employer has made in any ET claim. It can add to any bargaining power though: to show an employer has acted unlawfully]

sangie595

Mersey wrote: »

This is incorrect.
]

I suggest you re-read that link. Or preferably read the actual laws. It says "job title or a description of work" - that is actually not a job description. The employer needs only provide the job title or a very generic description, as in "you will fill shelves". Nothing more. There is NO legal requirement to provide a job description.