Employment Advice - Tribunal worth it?

bap98189

bobcat451 said: Work hadn’t decreased though? We were a team of 6 people 2 made redundant. 

That's irrelevant. The employer may have a different opinion, but even if they don't how they allocate resources to manage the workload is up to them. They may use contractors, outsource, or just flog the remaining staff to make them work harder. Whatever they decide is up to them. You might have some argument if they were recruiting for the same positions they were making redundant but they aren't. 

bobcat451

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

bobcat451

bap98189 said:

bobcat451 said: Work hadn’t decreased though? We were a team of 6 people 2 made redundant. 

That's irrelevant. The employer may have a different opinion, but even if they don't how they allocate resources to manage the workload is up to them. They may use contractors, outsource, or just flog the remaining staff to make them work harder. Whatever they decide is up to them. You might have some argument if they were recruiting for the same positions they were making redundant but they aren't. 

They are going to be recruiting for a effectively more advanced version of my role, which is basically the same job as I was doing in my role anyway

Undervalued

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

bobcat451

bap98189 said:

bobcat451 said: Work hadn’t decreased though? We were a team of 6 people 2 made redundant. 

That's irrelevant. The employer may have a different opinion, but even if they don't how they allocate resources to manage the workload is up to them. They may use contractors, outsource, or just flog the remaining staff to make them work harder. Whatever they decide is up to them. You might have some argument if they were recruiting for the same positions they were making redundant but they aren't. 

Also, they made me redundant because my position is effectively no longer needed, not the exact term they used but I'm going to say that because its the exact same thing. Yet they still have people working there doing the exact same job, and the same title. That doesn't really sound right

bobcat451

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

Ok but what if I was made redundant because the position is no longer needed at all, yet there are still people working there who are doing the same job?

lincroft1710

bobcat451 said:

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

Ok but what if I was made redundant because the position is no longer needed at all, yet there are still people working there who are doing the same job?

I think that has already been explained by 2 posters. 

Undervalued

bobcat451 said:

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

Ok but what if I was made redundant because the position is no longer needed at all, yet there are still people working there who are doing the same job?

Well if they once needed say five people doing a particular job, but now only three are needed then two can be made redundant. That might be because there is less work, or because of better technology or because they have decided to outsource some of the work (which they are quite entitled to do).

bobcat451

lincroft1710 said:

bobcat451 said:

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

Ok but what if I was made redundant because the position is no longer needed at all, yet there are still people working there who are doing the same job?

I think that has already been explained by 2 posters. 

Thanks for the very helpful comment. 

Why even bother commenting 

bobcat451

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

Undervalued said:

bobcat451 said:

TBagpuss said:

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? 

Yeah, I asked for a change in the work to help alleviate my stress but nothing got done about that 

As I explained right back at the beginning they don't have to make any changes unless you have a disability for employment law purposes. Nothing you have posted here makes it seem likely that you are disabled. Even if you were, they are only obliged to make "reasonable adjustments". Many firms do far more in this respect than is actually legally required but some don't. Reasonable adjustments don't actually go anything like as far as some people fondly assume.

A TBagpuss has explained it is a role, not a person that becomes redundant. If the job no longer needs doing (or less of it needs doing so fewer people are needed) some or all of the post holders can lawfully be made redundant. If so they must be selected fairly and are only entitled to the legal minimum redundancy pay (assuming at least two years service). Sometimes firms will pay more, occasionally as a gesture of goodwill, but more often if there are any grey areas in exchange for a legally binding agreement to waive any possible claim.

Ok but what if I was made redundant because the position is no longer needed at all, yet there are still people working there who are doing the same job?

Well if they once needed say five people doing a particular job, but now only three are needed then two can be made redundant. That might be because there is less work, or because of better technology or because they have decided to outsource some of the work (which they are quite entitled to do).

Position no longer needed at all though?