Made redundant while off sick

savelife

Apologies everyone for the long post, but looking for an answer for my dilemma.

I have been working with my company for 8 years. Wanted to go part time at the end of 2014, but at that time the company couldn't give me part time opportunity due to business requirements. Even though I had childcare needs, I agreed to remain full time. But I requested for part time option again after three months and this time they recruited someone to do the similar job, but gave a different title. So this new person came in full time and I also trained certain aspects of the job to the new person ( upon the request of my manager, I even stayed full time until the new person settled). When I went part time, jobs were not specified as to what will be mine and other person's. So I continued doing the same things as I was doing in my full time (I was now working 3days instead of 5 days).

The new person didn't had any commitments at all and was flexible at work, Where as I wasn't due to childcare problems.



2) In a redundancy situation, it is always last come first out. but I have been chosen due to my part time role and not the new person( now the company is saying we do different things and nothing similar but we were doing the same things) Is that not discriminatory? they have even dismissed 6 other short service staff from other departments, but not chosen the one from my department

3) I feel the way they have conducted the whole process is not correct?

4)Do you think that this is unfair process,do I stand a chance for an appeal or tribunal case?

thanks and looking forward to your advices.

sangie595

1) Going sick does not stop a redundancy procedure. And being sick to do your normal job doesn't mean you cannot attend meetings. If you don't attend they will happen without you.

2) What might be said verbally can't be proven. But in your second second point you say the company is saying the jobs are different - so they don't have to pool "different jobs". It would be up to you to prove they are not different.

2) (again) First in last out - nothing says this must happen and it is potentially unlawful.

3) I'm not seeing it. They did their best given that your reaction was to instantly go off sick.

4) No - not based on anything you have said here.

It is not unfair, even if you can evidence that the full-time role is the same as yours, to decide that they cannot sustain a part-time role as well. deciding that you want to come back full-time and challenge someone else for a role is called bumping - and an employer doesn't have to agree to it.

But even if they did agree to now pool you both - you have a poor performance review and sick leave. Both of which won't count in your favour.

savelife

Thank you for your reply Sangie595. really appreciated.
I am not against my employer but I thought the way they handled my redundancy was not right.

I have seen they waited for employees to get well/fit to work to continue the procedures .also during the sickness they called them to have a welfare meeting but in my case I felt like they were only pushing me each time.

I never called sick until now but the sudden news like this made me stress and couldn't cop up. I never had an idea of being redundant after working for 8 yrs in my company.

Also they never commended on my performance until the redundancy meeting. on my first redundancy meeting only my Manager told that my performance was not up to the expectation. then he mentioned about the part time role.

He only suggested that he will look for a job share with the full time employee with me which gave me a hope but on the next meeting they changed the idea.(its noted in meeting notes)

Then handed me entirely different roles for me to apply with such a higher salary .

all these made me think in this way. I feel like I have been treated different .

Is there anything else I can do? please advice.

Thanks

sangie595

savelife wrote: »

Thank you for your reply Sangie595. really appreciated.
I am not against my employer but I thought the way they handled my redundancy was not right.I understand that this isn't aboit being for or against the employer. And I get that you think it isn't right. Everyone thinks that. And they are right to. But "right" and "unlawful" are not the same thing.

I have seen they waited for employees to get well/fit to work to continue the procedures .also during the sickness they called them to have a welfare meeting but in my case I felt like they were only pushing me each time.Again, maybe not fair, but not unlawful

I never called sick until now but the sudden news like this made me stress and couldn't cop up. I never had an idea of being redundant after working for 8 yrs in my company.This is going to sound horribly cruel, I am sorry. But redundancy hangs over a lot of peoples heads all the time. They never think about it either. And I understand it is a shock and feels horrible. But your employer isn't going to stop because of that. and that isn't them being horrible either. It just is what it is.

Also they never commended on my performance until the redundancy meeting. on my first redundancy meeting only my Manager told that my performance was not up to the expectation. then he mentioned about the part time role. I just did a big sigh. I am so sorry. Employers should remember to say when people do a good job. Some do. Others don't. And there is nothing in law that says they must. I am sorry you didn't have a better employer. But they didn't have to be better, Redundancy isn't about being bad at your job - it is about saving money.

He only suggested that he will look for a job share with the full time employee with me which gave me a hope but on the next meeting they changed the idea.(its noted in meeting notes) And I am not surprised that the full time employee told them where to go. Why would the agree? They want and need a full time job and have one. Why would they give it up? It isn't their fault, and the manger should never have suggested that.

Then handed me entirely different roles for me to apply with such a higher salary .

all these made me think in this way. I feel like I have been treated different .

Is there anything else I can do? please advice.

Thanks

So far, they don't seem to be very caring employers, but nothing you have said suggests they have broken the law.

savelife

once again many thanks for your advice.

like you said ' as an employer they should never have suggested' to me about the job share which gave me a hope of keeping my job. Then when I said I am happy to do it and go full time they were surprised and changed their version.

They may have not broken the law but they treated me different I think.

They suggested as normal that I can appeal with in a week but that's not going to help as you know.

not sure what to do to justify myself with the injustice.

Mersey_2

Savelife: Re 1) and more importantly 3), employers have to very careful re the procedure.


Particularly since the Equality Act - as well as recent case law such as Griffiths v the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - employers have to make reasonable adjustments re those who are long-term sick.


Absence management policies couldn't of course include pestering sick employers to return to work.


It's certainly worth taking advice from an employment law expert.


Often merely a potential breach of contract aids the negotiation process; but, as sangie hints a lot of employers act in this way.


With over 8 years' service you are, at least, afforded both full Employment Tribunal rights, as well as statutory redundancy payments. The latter would at least give a slight cushion whilst looking elsewhere.

sangie595

savelife wrote: »

They may have not broken the law but they treated me different I think.
.

Unfortunately, unless they treat you differently because of a protected characteristic, such as race or gender, or disability, they are allowed to treat you differently.

savelife

Thank you for your reply Mersey.

for my peace of mind I would like to consult with an employment expert. I am really in a shock and cant digest this happened with me after my 8yrs hard work . Me along with my family and kids are suffering because of all these procedures.. I was hoping to get back to full time work or a job share like my manager suggested otherwise to get an alternative job in my company.

any employment expert you are aware of or in this forum please?

once again appreciate both you and Sangie's time and advice.

nimbo

Sangie IS the employment expert. I realise there are probably many others here too.

You and your children may be suffering - but the employers did follow a process. If they had allowed you to stay then other workers would have been suffering with their Families.

The employers may have halted proceedings for other workers while they were off sick for 6 months and then probably realised the savings they needed to be making weren't happening quickly enough - and the threat of redundancy was hanging over other people's heads for a long time - so have worked to smarten up timescales - which sucks for you - but wouldn't have relieved your stress - only postponed it and allowed it to drag on for months more.

The employer allowed you the opportunity to apply for other roles - and although I understand you did not feel qualified to do these - they were I imagine the only other options the employer had open during a time of restructuring.

You could try to fight it - using time and energy and probably cold hard cash. But from what has been said you may be better off using that energy lookjng for a new role.

sangie595

nimbo wrote: »

Sangie IS the employment expert. I realise there are probably many others here too.
.

Thanks you for the compliment, but there are definitely many others!

TBagpuss

OK, all this was obviously a shock for you.
The key issues sem to be :

- Was the pool of workers for redundancy selected fairly?
- Was the selection criteria fair
- Was the process, including dealig with your sickness, fair?

In relation to the selection of the pool, the employer has to have used reasonable methods to select a pool - an wemployment tribubal can't impose their own, different view as to how the pool should have been selected, they can only decide whether the employer's process was within the range of reasonable responses. So it may well be that their process of identifing that you were in a pool of one was one ofthe reasonabble outcomes, even if putting you and the other worker in a pool of two might have been equally reasonable.
If they used the fact that you were part time as aprt of their selection process that may be unreasonable, but if they are saying that the selection was based on job responsibilities and that the other worker has other / additional responsibilities then their sleection is unlikely to be unfair.

In relation to the selction criteris, if they selectede you because you were part time that may be unfair,however, if they selected you becuase of criteria relating to job performance, then, even if they had not previously told you of their concerns, the choice to use performance as a crtiera won't be unfair

Process - if youi are sick, they can still proceed with the process. It is likely for them to take reaspnable steps to accommodate the illness and it sounds as though they did - you did in fact have a number of meetings with them, and presumably even though you didn't attend the final meting you knew it was happening and had the opportunity to attend or to write to them.
I think it is unlikely that the process was unfair.

'last in, first out' is less common than it used to be as it can result in age discrimination and can also result in indirect sex discrimination as women are more likely to have career breaks due to child care. So although it can have attractions for employers as older employers and those with long service are the most expensive to make redundant, it is less common as a way of selecting than it used to be. And in any case, the fact that your employer might have used that as a criteria in the past doesn't put them under any obligation to do so now.

You may find it help ful to contact he ACAS helpline to see whether they can offer any further input. Check your household insurance s to see whether any cover initial legal advice, and failing that, look for a local solicitor who offers employment advice. Some may may be willing to provide an initial free or fixed cost appointment.