Redundancy question

[Wombat3]

Anyone know the answer to this one?

Two employees, two jobs, same role, one full time & one part time (3 days a week).

Company wants to reduce to having one full time person in this role

Do they put both roles at risk & ask both employees to apply for the new role or is it the case that the full time role is not being made redundant & therefore that its the part-timer that goes by default?

i.e. is the fact that one role is full time & the other part time enough of a differentiator between the two jobs to select the part timer automatically or do they have to be treated together because the roles & responsibilities are basically the same?

[davepoth]

Tricky question, especially if the part time employee is a mother.

[Gargamel]

Put both roles at risk, pending consultation.

Run the consultation process

Open the vacant role ie the full time run and invite applications.

Select the basket candidate.

Fair and transparent.


The only issue I could foresee is if the part time person suggests finder another part time person in addition to them.

[Wombat3]

OTOH , as far as the full time person is concerned their role still exists after the process - so why should they even be put at risk?

The full time role is basically not being made redundant.....

[Gargamel]

Wombat3 said:

OTOH , as far as the full time person is concerned their role still exists after the process - so why should they even be put at risk?

The full time role is basically not being made redundant.....

The part time person could in theory elect to change their hours and apply for the full time role, rather than lose their job.

AdditonLly you wouldn't say at the start of the process which role will remain, otherwise the consultation process is a waste of time.

You can do the whole thing quickly to minimise disruption.

Is there an Alternative role the part time person might do?

[Wombat3]

Gargamel said:

Wombat3 said:

OTOH , as far as the full time person is concerned their role still exists after the process - so why should they even be put at risk?

The full time role is basically not being made redundant.....

The part time person could in theory elect to change their hours and apply for the full time role, rather than lose their job.

AdditonLly you wouldn't say at the start of the process which role will remain, otherwise the consultation process is a waste of time.

You can do the whole thing quickly to minimise disruption.

Is there an Alternative role the part time person might do?

Not sure - but they have said that it will be a full time role going forward..... (a friend of my partner's is the full timer....)

[Jasandjules]

You may also wish to consider why the part time worker is part time i.e. childcare or disability....

[Wombat3]

Jasandjules said:

You may also wish to consider why the part time worker is part time i.e. childcare or disability....

Indeed, but whatever the reason, why is it that the full timer gets dragged into this at all when its basically the part time role that is being removed ?

Or is it the case that whether the roles are full or part time doesn't matter in this context & if the duties/responsibilities are basically the same they have to be considered together?

Does the full time person not have the right to argue that her position is basically not being made redundant and that therefore this process has nothing to do with her in the first place?

[anonymous-user]

In very broad terms, redundancy focuses on the employers' requirement for work of a certain kind, rather than focusing on a particular job held by an individual.

In addition, as JandJ correctly points out, issues to do with unlawful discrimination could arise, depending on the facts. Note that there is now some legal protection against deteriment based on part time status.