Employment Advice - Tribunal worth it?

getmore4less

Were all those lazy peers working through their breaks and doing unpaid overtime?

bobcat451

getmore4less said:

Were all those lazy peers working through their breaks and doing unpaid overtime?

No, I was the only one doing overtime. 

getmore4less

If they could get their jobs done without over time why were you needing to do it to get yours done?

bobcat451

getmore4less said:

If they could get their jobs done without over time why were you needing to do it to get yours done?

Our working hours were different in terms of time not length, I had more workload given to me which was almost impossible to get achieved in my working day

KiKi

Just to clarify: other people 'doing the same job' - are you all in exactly the same job?  Same job title, same work? 

bobcat451

KiKi said:

Just to clarify: other people 'doing the same job' - are you all in exactly the same job?  Same job title, same work? 

Correct

bobcat451

KiKi said:

Just to clarify: other people 'doing the same job' - are you all in exactly the same job?  Same job title, same work? 

Why do you ask?
I’ve been doing a lot of reading and apparently if you have been made redundant because your position is no longer needed and people are still working there doing the exact same job (they have taken my work) then that isn’t right?

bap98189

bobcat451 said: Why do you ask?

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and apparently if you have been made redundant because your position is no longer needed and people are still working there doing the exact same job (they have taken my work) then that isn’t right?

 If I employ 10 production staff and orders decrease by 20%, I don't have to make all 10 of them redundant. I can decide to make 1 or 2 or however many I want redundant. 

bobcat451

bap98189 said:

bobcat451 said: Why do you ask?

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and apparently if you have been made redundant because your position is no longer needed and people are still working there doing the exact same job (they have taken my work) then that isn’t right?

 If I employ 10 production staff and orders decrease by 20%, I don't have to make all 10 of them redundant. I can decide to make 1 or 2 or however many I want redundant. 

Work hadn’t decreased though? We were a team of 6 people 2 made redundant. 

TBagpuss

I think you need to do a bit more reading!
Roles, not people, are redundant. This can happen if the role disappears completely (e.g. the role of typewriter repairer would disappear when a company replaced all its typewriters with computers) or it can happen when there is less work to do (e.g. the company employs 5 salespeople but there business has reduced so they only need 4 salespeople moving forward, 1 of the five roles becomes redundant.)
When a company decides that some roles are redundant, they have to identify the 'pool' of people at risk - so if you are one of a group of people all doing exactly the same job, then normally all of you would be in the 'pool'.
Then they have to select which individuals are to be made redundant -at which point they have to use a fair criteria for picking which individual(s) are selected.

It is possible to be in a pool of one, if you re the only person doing your role - this isn't always as obvious as you might think - for example, if other people doing a similar role have different qualifications or skills then they may be classed by your employer as doing a slightly different role even if you see them as doing the same job.

It's further complicated by the fact that based on your employer apparently offering you a better deal than you are entitled to under the statutory rules (by the way, statutory redundancy isn't paid by the government, it's like minimum wage, the amount that the government has decided *has* to be paid) it sounds a bit as though you've been offered voluntary redundancy and that if you don't agree it then they will go on to a formal process but at that point will just pay the basic amounts.

They cannot select based on a disability but it doesn't sound as though you have a disability. and not selecting based on disability only means that they cannot use the disability as the reason to select someone, not that they can't make someone who has a disability redundant. 

They on't have any obligation to give you special treatment because you mentioned you might have mental health issues. They have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to help someone who has a disability do their job, and if you had health issues which were interfering with your ability to work then they might be expected to work with occupational health to see whether there were steps they could take to help you to do your job, but there is no general requirement to treat mental health issues differently to physical health issues, or for the employer to automatically offer support or enhanced treatment (particularly on the basis of a single 'mention' )

Had you specifically asked for a particular accommodation or change at work, and explained that it was due to your health?