Redundancy on probation query

[Keepitstupid]

After some help from those that know.. my company are making 6 people redundant from my department, we currently have 3 people still inside their 6month probation period and a few rumour doing the rounds that anyone on probation had to go before someone that wasn’t, from what I can find online this isn’t the case?! Just looking for a bit of clarity, management aren’t giving much away around that subject.

[the cueball]

Last in, First out is ‘frowned upon’ these days, but is still the first thing on the gov.uk site when looking at redundancy.

It’s normally used along with something else to try and get over some of the other issues around discrimination etc.


https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/being-se...

[Alex Z]

Keepitstupid said:

After some help from those that know.. my company are making 6 people redundant from my department, we currently have 3 people still inside their 6month probation period and a few rumour doing the rounds that anyone on probation had to go before someone that wasn t, from what I can find online this isn t the case?! Just looking for a bit of clarity, management aren t giving much away around that subject.

Roles are made redundant, not people, so if the newer folk are doing different jobs then their length of service is irrelevant.

Assuming they are in an affected pool of people there needs to be selection criteria to decide who stays or leaves. That’s may put the newbies at a disadvantage based on knowledge and experience levels, but it’s far from certain.

They’ve been hired because they can do the job, so may still be a better candidate to retain than an existing member of staff who’s not be doing a great job.

[Jasandjules]

You don't "have" to go however one of the criteria for the selection can be length of service...............

They do have a more aggressive approach available however should they wish but....

[jonsp]

Alex Z said:

They ve been hired because they can do the job, so may still be a better candidate to retain than an existing member of staff who s not be doing a great job.

So company hires some ambitious young guy who's still on probation but doing a great job. It would cost nothing to lose him.

They have an old timer with 20 years in marking time until their pension. Going to cost a lot to make him redundant.

So who gets binned? I'd like to think the old timer.

[Alex Z]

jonsp said:

Alex Z said:

They ve been hired because they can do the job, so may still be a better candidate to retain than an existing member of staff who s not be doing a great job.

So company hires some ambitious young guy who's still on probation but doing a great job. It would cost nothing to lose him.

They have an old timer with 20 years in marking time until their pension. Going to cost a lot to make him redundant.

So who gets binned? I'd like to think the old timer.

In a previous job I was in exactly that situation and they made the person with 25 years service redundant (which he was pleased about).

Then I resigned and they cancelled his redundancy….

[NikBartlett]

jonsp said:

Alex Z said:

They ve been hired because they can do the job, so may still be a better candidate to retain than an existing member of staff who s not be doing a great job.

So company hires some ambitious young guy who's still on probation but doing a great job. It would cost nothing to lose him.

They have an old timer with 20 years in marking time until their pension. Going to cost a lot to make him redundant.

So who gets binned? I'd like to think the old timer.

Binning off the old timer in isolation could be construed as age discrimination, then again if you make a couple of the youngsters redundant at the same time then that would balance things out a bit.