Redundancy or Reduced Hours

atjmm

Hi, yes, I hadn'sharpe106 said:

The 4 week trial period is for an different job so that both parties can see if it is for them or not. I don't think the same applies for a cut in hours.

Yes, sorry, I hadn't clocked the difference. In my case, they are classifying it as a different job, even though it is virtually the same, just on worse hours, so I get a 4-week trial.
Zesty_Maximus, in your case, maybe look at the law surrounding Constructive Dismissal instead, if you feel you have no choice but to resign because of the drop in hours? 
https://www.acas.org.uk/dismissals/constructive-dismissal

lincroft1710

Zesty shouldn't be resigning. Because the drop in hours is so drastic the job would become part time and indicates his current role will be redundant. So if he doesn't want to do part time hours, he should be offered redundancy.

sharpe106

As above don't resign, you basically lose all your rights then.

atjmm

lincroft1710 said:

Zesty shouldn't be resigning. Because the drop in hours is so drastic the job would become part time and indicates his current role will be redundant. So if he doesn't want to do part time hours, he should be offered redundancy.

Would this then make the reduced hours offer a “new role”, therefore meaning that he was entitled to a 4-week trial period?

sharpe106

I don't see why as they know what the job is. I think you were quite lucky to be offered a 4 week trial, I don't think they have to for change of hours. Plus what difference will it make even if they do?

lincroft1710

atjmm said:

lincroft1710 said:

Zesty shouldn't be resigning. Because the drop in hours is so drastic the job would become part time and indicates his current role will be redundant. So if he doesn't want to do part time hours, he should be offered redundancy.

Would this then make the reduced hours offer a “new role”, therefore meaning that he was entitled to a 4-week trial period?

He is doing the same work, so no. The 4 week trial period would be applicable if it was different work, for example he was in sales and was offered job in accounts.

atjmm

Well if it’s a new job due to the reduced hours, then he is entitled to a trial period if he wants one, or to alternatively take redundancy.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/redundancy/your-employer-offers-you-another-job/
It might or might not make a difference to him but if it is process that he is legally entitled to, and so should be offered by the employer rather than just simply saying that he has to take the reduced hours or quit without a redundancy payout. It might give him some breathing space to consider his options.

 In my case, my employer is not the type to offer anything unless they have to, so taking into consideration what lincroft1710 said about the new job being “part-time”, this would seem to explain why I was offered the trial period, and why the OP possibly should be as well.

getmore4less

How many people are doing these jobs?
if they plan to put everyone on 2 days from 5 then for every one that take redundancy that's 2 days to dish out to those that are left.

Better for the company to have everyone on short hours than fewer people on full time and then have to recruit/overtime if business picks up.

This is one case where group action can be helpful and finding out what everyone else wants to do.
what will they do if everyone says not doing 2 days make me redundant

AS part of consultation you could suggest than rather than reduced hours contracts they could use  temporary lay offs to see them through, here is the .gov link
https://www.gov.uk/lay-offs-short-timeworking


As the reduction is more than 1/2 that keeps the redundancy option open 

sharpe106

atjmm said:

Well if it’s a new job due to the reduced hours, then he is entitled to a trial period if he wants one, or to alternatively take redundancy.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/redundancy/your-employer-offers-you-another-job/
It might or might not make a difference to him but if it is process that he is legally entitled to, and so should be offered by the employer rather than just simply saying that he has to take the reduced hours or quit without a redundancy payout. It might give him some breathing space to consider his options.

 In my case, my employer is not the type to offer anything unless they have to, so taking into consideration what lincroft1710 said about the new job being “part-time”, this would seem to explain why I was offered the trial period, and why the OP possibly should be as well.

The link you quoted is for if the job was different, not just a reduction in hours. The idea of the 4 week trial is so that both parties know if the job is for them or not. In this case the OP already knows, just the hours. So I don’t see what difference a 4 week trail will make.

 

What Lincroft said was that the OP could have a trial if the job was to become something different not just the same job but on less hours.

 

Nobody suggested the OP should quit. We both said he should not quit as he loses most of his rights. If the OP does not want to do the new hours they should hold out for redundancy. If they are willing to do the new hours what difference does a 4 week trial make? They won't be any better off.   

getmore4less

The employment act makes no restrictions on trial periods where there is any change(as there is here ) to the contract.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/138