Hi all

I am just looking for some advice for how to argue a redundancy. I have received a letter inviting me to a consultation meeting as I have been provisonally selected for redundancy. I have asked for the selection process and current vacancies however have been told as I am the only one in that role they didn't need one. Also I am the only person being made redundant. I have then since found out the md has told other members of staff I am redundant before having the consultation. I just wanted to some advice on whether this is allowed and also what the process is. Can they hand me a letter at that meeting to work my notice? Can I argue unfair dismissal?

Thanks in advance.

depends on the reason they give for the redundancy. Chances are it is an improper process and you could therefore claim but you will have to raise it as a grievance dispute first and they might just alter the process to say that 9 peopel are affected, hold a mock interview for the others and surprise- you were still chosen.

Tell us why they think you post is redundt, how many people do the same job and waht other vacancies are there in the co at the moment?

depends on the reason they give for the redundancy. Chances are it is an improper process and you could therefore claim but you will have to raise it as a grievance dispute first and they might just alter the process to say that 9 peopel are affected, hold a mock interview for the others and surprise- you were still chosen.

Tell us why they think you post is redundt, how many people do the same job and waht other vacancies are there in the co at the moment?

The reason is a reduction in business and a need to reduce costs. Despite this they have just taken on another member of staff and hiring another next week. Technically there is someone else who will have to take over parts of my role and then they will outsource the rest. However they have a different job title to me. There was 3 other vacancies posted online last week which were then taken down a few days before I received my letter. The only job that is now live is something that they know I would not be able to do.

I can see where you are coming from, but I can think of a lot of alternative explanations here - the jobs were taken down a few days before because the company realised that they couldn't afford them, for example.

Can we start off with two questions? How long have you worked there? And if this is an attempt to simply get rid of you, why would they want to do that? There has to be an explanation for why they are out to get you if that is what is going on.

Hiring staff that you need to make the business profitable, whilst making redundancies elsewhere, is not uncommon and nor is there anything unreasonable in it. If your role is not required any longer or not cost effective, then that is the explanation for the redundancy. And it is a valid explanation. If you are the only person doing that role, then that is a valid explanation for selecting you alone. Creating a pool with people who do entirely different jobs would not be required or even sensible.

It is not really a good thing that the MD has said that the role is redundant before the end of consultation, but in itself it is highly unlikely that this is going to be considered a major infraction. In reality, this is what happens - the company already had its rational for what redundancy there is and its future direction, and pretending that it doesn't is futile. The company had identified this role as redundant. That is unlikely to change unless you can present a very persuasive argument. So this is unlikely to substantiate a claim of unfair dismissal, even if you have sufficient service to make such a claim.

And if the role is to be split up then this does not support a claim that the role is not redundant, or of TUPE if only part is putsourced

Certainly, based on what you have said here I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to say that this is an improper process. Employment tribunal actions are costly, and not something to enter into without sufficient grounds.