Made redundant just before 2 years employed. Then could be asked back. My rights?

gazza1988

Hi. 

I was made redundant on 7th October, with a month's notice (final day 7th November). My 2 years employment would have triggered on the 16th November, 9 days after my last day.

Fast forwards to today, 3 weeks later, I'm hearing that it's likely I would be contacted to return but for a short amount of time, around 3 months. 

Once that 3 months is up would I be due redundancy payment? Or is this a tactic to get around paying out after 2 years employed?

I was paid the normal amount in October pay and the extra week or 2 after that was paid on the normal date in November.

Ath_Wat

As I understand it, you have left.   As you haven't worked there for 3 weeks you won't be due any redundancy payment should you choose to return for 3 months as that will be a completely separate employment.

If they knew when they let you go in the first place that they would need someone for 3 months subsequently then yes, it could be a tactic to avoid you having two years service when they let you go, but unfortunately, they have done it already.  They must be prepared for you to refuse the offer of three months so presumably it's not critical for them.

DullGreyGuy

Having ended one contract and signed a new contract you'll have a new starting date and so again will be under 2 years service at the end of the 3 months contract. You could make your return conditional on it being considered continuous employment but if they'll go for that or not is another matter.

Its certainly not normal practice as it opens them up for arguments about unfair dismissal but it depends on why the original redundancies occurred, if you are back to the identical job or not and what has changed since the redundancies to result in the hiring. Clearly companies can rebound their fortunes and so legitimately want to rehire people they made redundant 

Alter_ego

Unfair dismissal is not a thing till 2 years. Unless protected characteriistics are cited as the reason

gazza1988

I thought that would be the case. 

I'm 99.9999% sure I was made redundant because of when my 2 years was due. I was covering for someone who suffered a stroke and was signed off until the new year. Now they are struggling because of someone needing to cover him who is also needing to be on the phones. 

Thanks for the responses. I didn't want to be taken for a mug by them. 

Marcon

gazza1988 said:

I thought that would be the case. 

I'm 99.9999% sure I was made redundant because of when my 2 years was due. I was covering for someone who suffered a stroke and was signed off until the new year. Now they are struggling because of someone needing to cover him who is also needing to be on the phones. 

Thanks for the responses. I didn't want to be taken for a mug by them. 

If the alternative is not having an earned income, whether or not you feel taken for a mug isn't really the issue, surely? Even if you'd completed two years of employment, any redundancy payment would have been pretty modest, so it is just as likely that they thought they could manage without the extra pair of hands you provided.

NCC1701-A

gazza1988 said:

I thought that would be the case. 

I'm 99.9999% sure I was made redundant because of when my 2 years was due. I was covering for someone who suffered a stroke and was signed off until the new year. Now they are struggling because of someone needing to cover him who is also needing to be on the phones. 

Thanks for the responses. I didn't want to be taken for a mug by them. 

that sounds like you are in a good negotiating position to demand more money, longer fixed term or combination of other terms if they need you.

Undervalued

gazza1988 said:

Hi. 

I was made redundant on 7th October, with a month's notice (final day 7th November). My 2 years employment would have triggered on the 16th November, 9 days after my last day.

Fast forwards to today, 3 weeks later, I'm hearing that it's likely I would be contacted to return but for a short amount of time, around 3 months. 

Once that 3 months is up would I be due redundancy payment? Or is this a tactic to get around paying out after 2 years employed?

I was paid the normal amount in October pay and the extra week or 2 after that was paid on the normal date in November.

No because your employment wouldn't have been continuous as there was a break of more than a week.

Wyndham

Are you working now? If so, and you like it, I think I'd tell them where to put their old job!

Though after saying that, things can change and it may not be malicious at all.

For reference, the rule for continuous employment is that once you've reached a second Saturday, that's the line. I did once finish a job on a Tuesday, then start back in a different job with the same employer on the following Friday, so a nine day break - but because there was only one Saturday I got continuity of employment. They did ask me to start on the Monday, but I explained and they were happy for me to start on the Friday instead!

GiantTCR

I would too ask for more money to go back. Then do the bare minimum while looking for another job and stick it to them.

TBagpuss

You don't have to go back. You can ask for higher wages / more paid holiday or some other perk. 

Also, if they only want you back for 3 months then you would presumably be looking for work again in 3 months time. If you are not currently working then you could agree to go back, if you have found a new job I'd stick with that instead

Unfortuantely, as I understand it, becusae you had been there fore less than 2 years, you could not claim unfair dismissal even if there wasn't a genuine redundancy situation.