NEW: Got questions about energy? Put them to Gary and Andrew from MSE's Utilities team during our energy-themed 'Ask An Expert' event. Check back here from Tuesday 9 August, 12pm

Position readvertised

I was made redundant from a staff position after 27 months, 10 weeks ago.

I felt at the time that it was unfair dismissal, as shortly before some job titles were reorganised to leave a few of us with a common job title; then the position of that job title was abolished. (My obvious suspicion was that it allowed the managers to protect their cronies and I appealed unsuccessfully that since the same work would need to covered by the remaining positions, that there should have been a joint pooling and selection of candidates)

Now I have seen a contract position advertised through an agency as short term 'cover' for the abolished position which no longer exists but on the same contract for the same client . Also this position may be extended.

Would I be right in suspecting that this would not change the legal position and there will be wriggle room in change of circumstances, even though there is no major change in the circumstances of the company?

Also is there any requirement to consider the redundant personnel for positions. There was some unminuted discussion about perhaps need to re-recruit if the market improved (i dont think it has), however there was quite a bit of bad blood generated through the consultation and appeal process.

Replies

  • asajjasajj Forumite
    5.1K Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    Forumite
    You already left I think ? Don't think there is any requirement for them to consider you for the role now.
    ally.
  • getmore4lessgetmore4less Forumite
    46.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    two possible scenario(there are others and combinations)

    They needed to save money and cut back too far so now need to get some help and would be happy to have someone experienced back so if you did not burn your bridges there may be a chance

    They wanted a clearout, knew it would leave them short and would have to recruit, but no way they will take anyone back.
  • custardycustardy Forumite
    38.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    helmie wrote: »
    I was made redundant from a staff position after 27 months, 10 weeks ago.

    I felt at the time that it was unfair dismissal, as shortly before some job titles were reorganised to leave a few of us with a common job title; then the position of that job title was abolished. (My obvious suspicion was that it allowed the managers to protect their cronies and I appealed unsuccessfully that since the same work would need to covered by the remaining positions, that there should have been a joint pooling and selection of candidates)

    Now I have seen a contract position advertised through an agency as short term 'cover' for the abolished position which no longer exists but on the same contract for the same client . Also this position may be extended.

    Would I be right in suspecting that this would not change the legal position and there will be wriggle room in change of circumstances, even though there is no major change in the circumstances of the company?

    Also is there any requirement to consider the redundant personnel for positions. There was some unminuted discussion about perhaps need to re-recruit if the market improved (i dont think it has), however there was quite a bit of bad blood generated through the consultation and appeal process.

    Its been over 2 years. plenty can change in that period.
  • custardy wrote: »
    Its been over 2 years. plenty can change in that period.

    I know my maths is really awful, but when was ten weeks the same period as two years?

    Sorry OP but short term cover is not an argument for the positions not being redundant. Quite the contrary. They have probably simply made you redundant a little too quickly and they are struggling to transition.

    They are not required to re-recruit you, but I think you need to decide, for your own peace of mind, whether they were unfairly dismissing you (in which case, why would you want to go back at all, even for a short time) or whether you would like a foot back in the door by applying for the position (with existing experience, you should stand a better chance, and it might lead to something longer term). You are still (just) within the period to be able to claim unfair dismissal if you wish to. But if you aren't going to, I would suggest that you let it go and accept that it is what it is. Feelings run high during any redundancy, and the "losers" always feel bad about it. Obviously. Nobody is going to blame you for that. But if you really and honestly feel that the place is a bunch of unfair and devious managers and their cronies, why would you want to work there again anyway? If, on the other hand, it was the luck of the draw and just tough luck, then you might want to think about it.

    BTW - selecting people who have short service often happens. It's cheaper to make then redundant. Not the way some employers would do thinks, but, equally, it is the way more than a few think.
  • custardycustardy Forumite
    38.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    sangie595 wrote: »
    I know my maths is really awful, but when was ten weeks the same period as two years?

    Sorry OP but short term cover is not an argument for the positions not being redundant. Quite the contrary. They have probably simply made you redundant a little too quickly and they are struggling to transition.

    They are not required to re-recruit you, but I think you need to decide, for your own peace of mind, whether they were unfairly dismissing you (in which case, why would you want to go back at all, even for a short time) or whether you would like a foot back in the door by applying for the position (with existing experience, you should stand a better chance, and it might lead to something longer term). You are still (just) within the period to be able to claim unfair dismissal if you wish to. But if you aren't going to, I would suggest that you let it go and accept that it is what it is. Feelings run high during any redundancy, and the "losers" always feel bad about it. Obviously. Nobody is going to blame you for that. But if you really and honestly feel that the place is a bunch of unfair and devious managers and their cronies, why would you want to work there again anyway? If, on the other hand, it was the luck of the draw and just tough luck, then you might want to think about it.

    BTW - selecting people who have short service often happens. It's cheaper to make then redundant. Not the way some employers would do thinks, but, equally, it is the way more than a few think.


    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks :o
  • custardy wrote: »
    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks :o
    I know. I tried to resist, but I just couldn't :rotfl:
  • custardy wrote: »
    Lol,sorry I read it as 27 months & 10 weeks :o
    Would you not call that 29 months and 2 weeks - or just under two and a half years?
  • getmore4lessgetmore4less Forumite
    46.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    Month not equal 4 weeks.
  • custardycustardy Forumite
    38.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Would you not call that 29 months and 2 weeks - or just under two and a half years?

    Well I had wondered if the 10 week was a notice period or the like.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Homes, hornets & high heels

This week's MSE Forum highlights

MSE Forum

Kids eat for 'free' or £1 this summer

Little ones can enjoy hot meals for less

MSE Deals