Jump to content
Satch9

re-deployment within service unit.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3579 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

HI All.

 

We are currently going through a redundancy period and some of the staff that have been identified on the threat register are a little confused.

 

We operate 3 sports centres and as such have a very large central one and a smaller facility, however we also opererate a duel use facility.

 

Within the risk register staff from the duel centre have been highlighted. However so have 2 other staff who were originally employed there but have since been re-deployed. 1 for 11 /12 months as a manager at the smaller one and the other as a supervisor at the larger one (3 months ago). Both have been told this is due to the possible closure of the duel use centre where they were intially employed.

 

Surley if they have been re-deployed they should not fall under this selection as they have moved to other centres. One of the staff even had a change of status form filled in to say that they now works at the large centre, this makes no reference to any tempory position and as such was led to beleive this was perminant. they both get paid from the respective budgets at the current place of work and not from the old centres.

 

One has 13 years service and the other 4 years, both have moved between centres in the past and have had no problems before.

 

Can I also add that neither of them received any variation to contract documents after moving as is advised after 1 month by ACAS.

 

any advice will be much appreciated.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. Has anyone spoken to ACAS about what you've outlined?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that's helped, satch :).

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI All.

 

We are currently going through a redundancy period and some of the staff that have been identified on the threat register are a little confused.

 

We operate 3 sports centres and as such have a very large central one and a smaller facility, however we also opererate a duel use facility.

 

Within the risk register staff from the duel centre have been highlighted. However so have 2 other staff who were originally employed there but have since been re-deployed. 1 for 11 /12 months as a manager at the smaller one and the other as a supervisor at the larger one (3 months ago). Both have been told this is due to the possible closure of the duel use centre where they were intially employed.

 

Surley if they have been re-deployed they should not fall under this selection as they have moved to other centres. One of the staff even had a change of status form filled in to say that they now works at the large centre, this makes no reference to any tempory position and as such was led to beleive this was perminant. they both get paid from the respective budgets at the current place of work and not from the old centres.

 

One has 13 years service and the other 4 years, both have moved between centres in the past and have had no problems before.

 

Can I also add that neither of them received any variation to contract documents after moving as is advised after 1 month by ACAS.

 

any advice will be much appreciated.

 

Thank you.

 

Place of work isn't relevant to a fair redundancy selection (and nor is former place of work). A redundancy pool should contain all posts which are the same or roughly the same, within an employment establishment, which may be spread over several workplaces. If anything, this may argue that the redundancy pool should be larger - not smaller. Anyone in thethree centres directly employed by the employer and having a braodly similar job could be included, and if they are not then it may give rise to a claim of unfair selection

 

ACAS may advise on issuing variations of contract, but it isn't a legal requirement and is often overlooked.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ACAS may advise on issuing variations of contract, but it isn't a legal requirement and is often overlooked.

 

All sorted now, due the above reasons and the fact that they are no longer in the posts they were trying to make redundant they have been removed from the list, I think that the unfair selection was the main reason for it.

 

thanks for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...