Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • westbridgfordguy
    • By westbridgfordguy 15th Mar 18, 5:09 PM
    • 67Posts
    • 21Thanks
    Prohibited applying same company after redundancy
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 18, 5:09 PM
    Prohibited applying same company after redundancy 15th Mar 18 at 5:09 PM
    So I worked for a multinational manufacturing company for 2 years during which the business was taken over by another multi national firm whom decided that the factory I was in charge of was not part of their future business plans and so was shut down. Myself and another 30 staff were all made redundant, there were no other roles to redeploy myself into so took my pay off.

    Roll forward to today, I noticed a job on the internet being handled by an agency that was quite clearly the same company which absorbed my company 2 years ago. I phoned the agency to discuss the role and told them I had relevant experience having worked for the same company before, at this point things got very sticky.

    The recruiter demanded to know why I left, when I told him I was made redundant then he still would not relent saying "i would be very reluctant to put you forward if you have been made redundant from this company". It was only after I informed him that i was not working at the same site but a sister site in the UK then he said he would forward me a copy of the job spec.

    Reading into his reaction does this mean then all companies or recruiters see redundancy as a negative aspect and that there was some negative reason why a person was made redundant, not because the role was made redundant but because the person was selected for a negative reason?

    The recruiters reaction also now makes me wonder whether I was engineered out of the business for a reason given that I did not have any negative appraisals, or warnings etc and had an exemplary attendance record.

    Thoughts please?
Page 1
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 15th Mar 18, 6:58 PM
    • 33,238 Posts
    • 20,067 Thanks
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 18, 6:58 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 18, 6:58 PM
    if you had worked out who the job was with why did you go through the agent, direct usually an option to explore first.

    If they closed the factory then jobs gone that is not being engineered out.

    How much effort did you put into looking for alternatives within the new organisation?

    Was there no opportunity to take over the business being run from that factory?
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 18th Mar 18, 10:00 PM
    • 10,923 Posts
    • 12,585 Thanks
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:00 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 10:00 PM
    I presume his reaction was because sometimes redundancy is a veiled way of getting rid of under-performers or people that are out of favour with management.

    Obviously this twit didn't bother to check on the reasons why you were made redundant.

    Certainly on your CV if applicable, or in interviews, lead by saying the branch you worked at closed rather than just state you were made redundant
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 2nd Apr 18, 1:14 AM
    • 5,306 Posts
    • 7,415 Thanks
    • #4
    • 2nd Apr 18, 1:14 AM
    • #4
    • 2nd Apr 18, 1:14 AM
    Some employers don't like to recruit people who used to work for them, no matter what reason they left. I don't know why but perhaps they have found they don't tend to stay because it's not like they remember?

    Perhaps the recruiter doesn't want to risk wasting their time as sometimes companies don't make their best redundant so they fear you won't get the job. However that ignores the fact that lots of very good people get made redundant, especially when whole sites, departments or fields of work get let go.

    Or perhaps the recruiter has dealt with companies that have a period of time where those made redundant are excluded from being re-employed. My previous employer has a 5 year exclusion period as they felt it was bad for morale for the majority of the workforce to recruit someone who had recently been paid a large sum of money by them.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • anamenottaken
    • By anamenottaken 2nd Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • 4,146 Posts
    • 3,628 Thanks
    • #5
    • 2nd Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    Could also have been that he thought the company (his client) would say they already knew you and would not pay for the introduction.
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 5th Apr 18, 2:32 PM
    • 5,453 Posts
    • 6,052 Thanks
    • #6
    • 5th Apr 18, 2:32 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Apr 18, 2:32 PM
    Some employers don't like to recruit people who used to work for them, no matter what reason they left.
    Originally posted by Kynthia
    That is certainly true. My niece worked for Royal Mail and left when she married and moved away. There was no opportunity at the time to move to a location near her new home - she did check before handing her notice in. Fast forward a few years and vacancies near her were advertised through the agency who do recruitment for RM. She had an interview and offered a job by the agency. A few days later she got another letter informing her that the offer was being withdrawn because RM wouldn't re-employ staff who had left.
    This obviously begs the question of why the agency offered her the job in the first place. Before anybody suggests it - there was no question of her leaving under a cloud of any sort. She had been with RM for a number of years and always done well.
    • ReadingTim
    • By ReadingTim 10th Apr 18, 4:24 PM
    • 2,986 Posts
    • 4,416 Thanks
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 4:24 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 4:24 PM
    It's possible that the recruiter was doing this out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to the company. Technically speaking, it's the role that's being made redundant, not the person. There's a formal, legal process which has to be gone through, and there are tax benefits attached to payments relating to redundancies. As a result, a company doesn't want to get this wrong, as mistakes can come back to bite them on the @rse. Expensively.

    But errors can be made and mistakes could happen, which could be exploited by those with malicious intent. Even if there was a completely unconnected change of circumstances (such as the case you mention), a trouble maker could potentially have a field day even if their case was completely unfounded - the time and cost of proving this is a cost most employers would rather do without.

    The recruiter may have simply thought he was doing the company a favour by not putting forward those who were previously been made redundant, even if the process was completely proper.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,514Posts Today

9,299Users online

Martin's Twitter