Board logo

another redundancy question....
FASTdan - 25/4/12 at 10:58 AM

Further to my last question on the subject which can be viewed in the link below....

previous thread

Basically the end result was 3 people with the same job title were announced as 'at risk'. One was a contractor, the other two permanent. The contractor mutually agreed to go due to outside circumstances, leaving one unlucky permanent guy being made redundant. He left 3 weeks ago.

Now, we suddenly have a backlog of work. Boss wants to bring the contractor back in to do said work.

Whats the legality on that? My immediate thought would be that its dodgy ground? My knowledge on this sort of thing is very limited, but if its 'the position' that is made redundant, surely you cant just fill it again like that?

big-vee-twin - 25/4/12 at 11:06 AM

You have to offer the job to the person who was made redundant within the first 12months of the redundancy date, I understand.

Mr Whippy - 25/4/12 at 11:07 AM

why not? that's what being contract is all about

only good thing is the last guy must have done a decent job to be asked back

FASTdan - 25/4/12 at 11:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
why not? that's what being contract is all about

only good thing is the last guy must have done a decent job to be asked back


I appreciate thats what contracting is about (I am a contractor) but I'd be surprised if they can just bring someone back to do the same job that has just been made redundant, which is why I'm asking.

theduck - 25/4/12 at 11:35 AM

Is dodgy grounds but the permanent staff that were made redundant would have to give a big enough poo to take action abuot it.

contaminated - 25/4/12 at 11:51 AM

Perfectly legal I would think. How else could you be expected to deliver at short notice? Doesn't stop it being an unpleasant situation though.

ReMan - 25/4/12 at 11:55 AM

I can't see, as emotive as it might be, that the compny is doing much wrong.
presumably the redundancies were based on lack of work (common these days) and as there is suddenly a better than antyicipated workload they need to cover it.
How they do that is largely up to them, but I guess the "welders assistant" role that was made redundant is now looking like an "assistant welder" is required, either permanant or, FT contract?

mds167 - 25/4/12 at 12:05 PM

I would assume that...

If the contractor is being brought back on a short term contract to reduce a backlog before being released again then probably not a problem (assuming that the workload is sufficient for one person under normal circumstances).

If the position comes back up on a permanent basis then it should be offered to the redundee initially, as previously stated.

Why not ask the ex-perm to come back as a contractor? They would probably lose their redundancy under the terms of their contract.

Was it just a sneaky way to reduce perm headcount and associated costs? Surely not!

ditchlewis - 25/4/12 at 12:10 PM

you do not say whether this post will be perminant or just short term until the back log is cleared. i would say that if it is a hsort term contract that there are no problems with the contractor.

on the other hand i have been laid off several times in the past and i have always had a new job before the notification period is up and as a matter of principal i would never go back and work for a company that thought me expendable in the first place.

ditch

snapper - 25/4/12 at 05:57 PM

Employment law is quite specific, first any contractors must go, then voluntary redundancy offered to all staff, in this specific case either of the 2 doing the same job, then compulsay if no one volunteers.
Employing a contractor only a matter of weeks after a full time staff member has been made redundant, fails on the general definition of redundant, i.e. the work has ceased or reduced, clearly not in this case.
The employee made redundant has recourse to an unfair dismissals tribuneral and could get compensation to £11500.
He should seek advise and put a claim in before 3 months has elapsed.
The reason I am in a union is so I don't get stiffed and I have access to legal advise.
You can't get more than the law provides but you can get what you are entitled to.

SteveWalker - 25/4/12 at 07:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by snapper
Employment law is quite specific, first any contractors must go.


I agree with the rest, but that bit is not quite so straightforward. I am a contractor and yes, I would normally expect to go first. However, I tend to be taken on for specific, large projects and as such, it could delay documentation required for regulatory approvals (and thus prevent hand-over of the installation, costing millions of pounds extra) if I were dropped and a member of staff from a similar position on another project had to take over, without the background knowledge and intimate detail of the project and without enough time to get up to speed within the delivery deadlines. Under those circumstances companies (and the law) may well consider it perfectly reasonable to keep the contractor on even after the staff guy has gone.

Moorron - 25/4/12 at 07:50 PM

mmm, i got made reduntant from a 12 year job, i took them to court with my money and lost. It was one of those defo wins situations, the first meeting in the court went very well as we showed they didnt follow their proceedure or even the law, modified documents to say i was doing those jobs, didnt have a job title, contract and mis dated letters to me to make it look like i had them for weeks.

Problem was it was 3 months later when we went back for the conclutions, the judge said at the start she didnt have tme to read her notes from last time and then went on the end statements from both solicitors which i was fuming as the other guy was just trying it on as he knew it was one way. |In the end i lost, i was told in very stern terms that it wasi that didnt want to follow the proceedures (yet i had lettesr from the company saying they had forgot to reply to me and so on) and that was that. My boss ran out the room (he thought i was going to kneck him) and his solicitor yelped 'yes' in the court room.

IF you tell him to take things up them just remind him the law doesnt care who wins as long as somebody does so the case can be closed, the solicitors only care for the pay you give them and the judge only cares about her holiday (in my case anyway). I was 100% sure i was right, had proof and thought the law would work the right way but it didnt, and the same might be the same in your case.

If you can afford to lose they go for it, but its a gamble either way.

However not all doom and gloom, its opened my eyes to what is out there and how good some places are to work at. If i was you i would be looking for a job elsewhere because they have shown the true colors of how they treat employees.

PS, DONT GET INVOLVED yourself, just keep an eye on it all and use it to make your mind up that benifits you.