Made redundant. Legal to dole out duties to existing employees when they say role is not needed?

MoneySeeker1

prowla said:

Yes, they can apportion out your work to other employees.

They can't have someone else do exactly your work (ie. all of it and nothing else).

I've had exactly this situation myself before now. 

It was quite some years back and, if there was a redundancy, then it wasn't mine (ie as I wasn't the "last one in" in that type of role). So - we are talking about 30 years ago now and therefore things may well have changed since then - whether for better or worse.

But, at that point (ie the 1980s) there was a law (which I would think is still there) forbidding my job being taken over by someone else for 2 years - on the grounds that it was supposed to be redundant (as I'd just been told I was redundant from it).

Funnily enough - exactly 2 years and 1 day later my exact job was advertised again and they'd tried to hide the fact it was my job by giving it a different title as well. But it most definitely was my old job.

So I guess they knew about that law too - and had done "belt and braces" by waiting till exactly 1 day after that 2 year period and re-naming my job.

Whilst they counted those days off the calendar until they could get away with being open about my job being there again - they instructed me to hand over my various duties to other people to share out between them. Funnily enough, they seemed surprised I wasn't exactly helpful in telling those other people how to do my job.

kaMelo

shadowfortress said:

Hi. After being on furlough, I've just been made redundant. The reason being that due to Covid, there is no justification for my role for the near to medium term future. I argued there was enough to do under the JSS, which would require me to work 7.5 hours a week but they said no. However, some of my duties that still needed doing during my time on furlough (including coming up with new Covid policies) had been given to a couple of other employees, and they will probably continue to do them once I leave. During my handover, I need to present my knowledge to one of these employees, which increases my suspicion.

My question is, is this legal? It is clear that my job role is still needed, albeit at a much reduced rate. And I thought it was illegal to make someone redundant and simply pass on the job duties to others when they just told me the role is not needed at this time. What also increases my spidey senses is that the amount they are having to pay me to let me go far exceeds the cost of keeping me on JSS for the full six months.

Would going to Citizens Advice and seeing what they have to say be worth doing? Thanks for the advice!

The important thing to remember with redundancy is that it is the role that is redundant, not the person. In your scenario it's not uncommon for a company to assess that two people can do the roles that were done previously by three people and redistribute the workload accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that.
What must happen though is that the person who will unfortunately be made redundant is chosen in a fair and transparent process. Whether that has happened is impossible for anyone here to judge and maybe a chat with citizens advice would be helpful.

shadowfortress

I appreciate the replies everyone.

I can't help but feel this is a cost saving exercise for them as this role is still needed once the Covid situation"calms down". It's like I've work hard to get everything working well for the company and then they think they can just use what I've done to carry on without me. Unfortunately, I know that the people given my duties won't do as good a job as me, as it is not their main duties. In time, things that I've spent time sorting out will go back into the "land of confusion."

shadowfortress

MattMattMattUK said:

Yes it is entirely legal. What they can not do is give your job role, like for like, to someone else, but they can integrate part or all of your duties into other job roles.

There is also no obligation to keep you on a reduced basis under JSS (something which is now delayed until December at the earliest anyway). I am not sure if your calculations are correct unless you are on a very high contractual redundancy, it also has the problem that the cost to make you redundant would still exist in six months time.

Yes, I'm on contractual terms. Plus there is unused holiday pay, etc.

lincroft1710

shadowfortress said:

I can't help but feel this is a cost saving exercise

All redundancies are cost saving exercises. Why employ 100 people when you can get by with 99, even better if it is 98. In some organisations it could be the difference between solvency and insolvency.

EssJayD

Are there others in the business who carry out a similar role to you?  Have they FULLY consulted with you i.e. explained reasoning (purely cost or is it skills needed, or both?) given you time to consider and the opportunity to ask questions and propose other solutions e.g. why your duties have been combined to other roles, instead of others duties combined with yours (assuming you are capable of carrying out the duties required in the other roles?).  If its cost could you propose a salary decrease, if its skills are you more experienced in company operations/knowledge of overall business than others etc.  If you could pick up their duties its possible they should be in the selection pool too.  https://www.landaulaw.co.uk/redundancy/

epm-84

Was it done as part of a consultation process, with you being given a chance to put forward an alternative proposal? 

Thrugelmir

shadowfortress said:

It's like I've work hard to get everything working well for the company and then they think they can just use what I've done to carry on without me. 

Comes to a shock to many of us during our working lives that we aren't dispensable. Business is just that business. Always treat it as such. We get paid for the work we do. That's the recompense, not a guaranteed job for life.