Can they make me redundant and keep a temp on?

chelseablue

Thank you all.


Should find out first week of November who is at risk

MEM62

sangie595 wrote: »

And it is also rather irrelevant anyway, because "permanent" is meaningless. If a "temp" has two years service then they have exactly the same employment rights, in all respects, as any other employee with two years service. If a permanent employment has less than two years service, then they have exactly the same rights as the temp - i.e. almost none. The only time it would make a difference is if the temp was an agency worker, and in respect of the OP's question, then it would be fine to keep an agency worker on whilst making redundancies elsewhere. It's an easy case to make.

Hardly irrelevant from an employers point of view when temporary staff and permanent staff are managed in different ways and the administration of their employment is completely different.

In respect of the original point I made I stand by my opinion. Redundancy would be difficult to justify if the company involved has to cover the work or 'job' that is no longer supposed to exist with temporary staff. In that case the job clearly still exists.

asajj

MEM62 wrote: »

I currently have two employees that are now permanent after having successfully made that very argument.

Great for them. I work in large organisations and all temps were paid my monthly salary within a week so they weren't willing to become permanent employees even when the company offered them to do so. There are other temp jobs outside for them to do it anyway so they could just leave.

Op already stated that this person does a different role. Usually, when they go towards redundancy, business transformation etc they change the role descriptions and create new ones (as part of a new structure/renewed function) so they can also argue that the role is different.