Suitable alternative employment

PParka

Can any one help with this situation?
An employee currently has a contract for 21 hours a week.  They work 7 hours per day for 3 days of the week.
The company has decided to change the role to mornings only, so have offered two alternatives:

• 4 hours per day for 5 days of the week. (total 20 hours)
• 4 hours per day for 3 days of the week. (total 12 hours)

The employer has said that this is 'suitable alternative employment' so does not have to offer redundancy.  Is this correct?
Surely if the total number of hours is changing, then it isn't the same role and redundancy should be offered?

TheSpiddalKid

I've quoted below a reply I gave on another thread which was a query not too dissimilar to your own.

TheSpiddalKid said:

this may come down to what argument they put forward, dismissal and re-engagement is not the same as redundancy or offer of suitable alternative employment so it needs to be clear what process is being followed.

if it is redundancy, the employer's argument is that there is a diminishing requirement for the role, but this is suitable alternative employment as a redundancy avoidance measure.

They may look to use a variation clause in a contract (though it does not sound like this is the case). This site gives information on variation clauses.

https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2018/how-can-i-vary-a-contract/

If they are using dismissal and re-engagement they do not need to rely on a variation clause or redundancy, the employer needs to show that there is a pressing need (legally called Some Other Substantive Reason)  and that they have acted reasonably and fairly. There is info on fire and re-hire via CIPD here, 

https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/emp-law/terms-conditions/fire-rehire-employer-guidance