Continuous employment.. 4 August 2020 at 9:38AM in Redundancy & redundancy planning 3 replies 122 views

Deehills

I have worked for my employer since Sept 2014, but between Sept 2014 and November 2015 I was employed via the organisations internal temp agency. During that period I was working full time, with no breaks and even did regular overtime, even though I was effectively on a zero hours contract. I was told that the only reason I was employed as a temp was because it was a new position and the organisation in question can't create new positions until the next budget cycle.

In Nov 2015 I was officially made permanent - exactly the same job, hours and pay as I'd been doing before. I have worked continuously since Sept 2014, the only difference has been a paperwork change.

Roll on to today and the organisation is offering decent voluntary severance packages. I have enquired, but they say that the 14 months between 2014 and 2015 don't count as "continuous employment". However, other people employed at the same time as me, doing the exact same job are getting the extra, because their contracts were proper permanent ones. When I was initially taken on I was verbally told that I "wouldn't lose out" by virtue of being employed initially on a zero hours contract.  

I don't feel this is fair and not in the spirit of things. I have tried googling but the advice is vague. Thoughts? 

 

lincroft1710

As there is no such thing in employment law as voluntary redundancy, then any payment you receive is down to negotiation between you and your employer. Unless you have a new job to go to, why would you want to leave?

Your employer does not have to be "fair" nor act "in  the spirit of things" whatever they may be, they merely have to abide by employment legislation.

Masomnia

I'd argue it's a TUPE situation so your employment should be continuous.

Deehills

Thanks all. 
Yes, I think it should be regarded as continuous; I read something on the web that there should be a gap between contracts in order to be regarded as not continuous, in this case there was no gap. Also the job is exactly the same and of course at the outset I was verbally told that the job would be made permanent.  
With regards "why consider leaving?" it is actually a substantial amount of money we're talking about and the difference between the two figures is considerable. I'm concerned that what might follow will be compulsory redundancies, so I'd like top argue my case for continuous employment now, and get that confirmed while HR are being nice, than later when things could get acrimonious.