Hi

At the start of May, two members from a four member team were made redunandant from our jobs. I was pretty upset at the time, and would have contested it had I not been lucky and got myself a better job (pay and location) within a week. All other members of staff were genuinely shocked that I was one of the two to go, considering I have been there the longest and therefore acknowledged to have known the most about the job. My attendence record was better than a member who stayed, and, again, everyone acknowledged that there was too much work for just two people to do, so it does (still) feel a bit of a personal decision taken against me.

In any case, as I said I was very lucky in getting another job so soon, so I chose to forget about it. However, I have just found out that the company have now employed a new person in the role, advertising it just 4 months after the redundancies. This has me a bit peeved to be honest, as I assumed that if a job was redundant, it was redundant, and not to be filled again so soon after. Again, this made the redundancy feel pretty personal.

Is there anything against this practice, or are they free to do that? It doesn't feel very ethical at all!

Thanks

I know this doesn't help, but they proberbly pay the new person less money. I am of the opinion that redundancies occur so that the company can get rid of high salaried staff and employ cheaper people.

Hi there, when the redundancy process started was a proper selection process used? i.e. were all four of you scored against the same criteria? If you all do the same job and this selection process was not carried out then the redundancy could be classed as unfair dismissal.

Kind Regards

Ell-enn

Not knowing enough about redundancy laws, i was on the understanding that if you were made redundant, your employer couldnt replace you. Anyone ?

As far as I am aware there is no set time limit in which an employer cannot re-advertise a position previously made redundant, however if they do so without good reason they are wide open to an allegation of unfair dismissal.

An employer may quite reasonably make a position redundant only for the business to later see an upturn in orders or be awarded a new contract, making it viable to employ staff to cater for this. It may also be that movement of staff elsewhere in the structure has increased the workload back to a position where your former position is once again viable. If, however he simply decides that he has made a mistake, then a wise employer will leave it for a 'reasonable' period before readvertising the position, will not advertise exactly the same job, or may even approach the previous post holder to invite them to apply, for as Ell-enn suggests this may demonstrate that the selection process for redundancy or even the reason for making the postion redundant was flawed at the start. The law does not restrict the ability of an employer to hire and fire as he deems fit to run the business efficiently, providing that he does so in a lawful, fair and reasonable manner.

In answer to your question therefore, it would depend on the circumstances and what you hope to achieve. You could always write to the company and ask them to reaffirm the reason for job being made redundant (only to be readvertised shortly afterwards) and explain your sense of feeling that the reason may have been personal. The response may make you feel better or worse, or you may not receive a reply at all. To pursue any claim against the employer if you are not satisfied though, you would need to persuade a Tribunal that there are sufficient grounds to extend the usual time limit of three months in order to bring action, and any award to you as a result of a successful action would be based on the detrimental impact of the unfair dismissal on your circumstances. In your case, having found a job which involved better pay and conditions within a week, I feel that even if you were able to bring, and win a case, any award would be insufficient to make it worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate where you are coming from, and I know that I would feel the same, but I do not believe that there is much mileage in pursuing it.

I understood it was six months before a redundant position could be re-filled?

I'm working remotely so can't check this at the moment. Anyone?

AFAIAA there is nothing in the ERA which sets a limit. Some say three months, but more often six months is considered to be the accepted period as it represents the maximum time available to a redundant employee in which they could argue that the redundancy constituted unfair dismissal upon seeing their former position readvertised..