I may need some employment law advice....

[T89 Callan]

Thanks to that Gordon Brown and his superb leadership my sister has been told she is being made redundant today.

Despite the fact that she is the only person in her team who acheives her weekly targets (she usually makes more than double) and the most productive person in her entire dept' she is being made redundant because she has worked there for less than 2 years and so isn't entitled to any redundancy pay. Talk about shortsightedness....

Anyway my question revolves around this fact:

As she is held in genuinely high regard by her managers she has been "invited to re-apply for her job".

Now surely this can't be legal? I was under the impression that it is the 'position' that is made 'redundant' and not the person? You can't make someone redundant and then employ someone in exactly the same position?

I'll post more info as I get it but I am literally seething about this development and genuinely very sad for my sister, she loved her job, worked very hard and has just put a deposit on a house.

Thats now 3/4 of my family who have been made redundant, if I ever meet Gordon Brown I'm going to spit in his face.

[Shake&Bake]

I would say that if she is as good as you say she is this maybe their way of circumventing the bureaucracy i.e. their hands are tied they have to let her go but ahem if she were to reapply she'll be right back in. It can be a way for an employer to get rid of "dead wood" then get the good 'uns back.

Not saying it's guaranteed but I would strongly advise getting her to reapply (as you have said they asked her to do)before threatening any form of legal activities.

[T89 Callan]

I hope that is the case, it's st though that she would be back to being 2 years away from any redundancy entitlement rather than the 6 months she was.

[Prolex-UK]

I'd say walk away from it.

From what you say she is good at what she does. So will probably find something else quickly.

Company seem a bunch of shysters TBH

[Soovy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This, and apply some dark foundation

[Engineer1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Tonker, Unless they are supremely retarded they will have some form of paperwork to justify the selection and if they don't they will have someone who can write and produce it on demand, of course a lot of companies are upremely retarded.

[FNG]

I imagine they'll be pleased to re-hire the best performer in the department but with a fresh 2 years of freedom to get rid without paying redundancy. And maybe on less money?

That means she should re-apply for her job, smile nicely and take the pain, but look elsewhere for another job from this day forward.

[Soovy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Never ceases to amaze me how big law firms manage to f ck this up. Generally because their HR chicks are too busy bending over in the stationery cupboard in their undersize Pinks shirt.

[FNG]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because HR everywhere is generally dominated by women.

Take one female boss, add a load of female minions all flying the red flag at the same time of the month, and watch it not-quite-ever-work.

[Soovy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I was not, of course, referring to the fragrant Mrs Tonks.

For the avoidance of doubt......

[Soovy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Visible stocking tops get an extra ten here.

[T89 Callan]

Well a quick update, my sister is apparently not redundant but thanks to a laughably badly worded letter (which I have read) this was the impression she and everyone else she works with was given. It was only cleared up when she approached her boss to 're-apply'.

Seems that within the next few weeks 6 of the 8 people in her group will be made redundant, but the 6 have not been chosen yet and it will be decided on work merit?

Anyway she has been assured that she has nothing to worry about due to her performance at work.

[Davel]

Is she the most recent to join the team?

Sometimes they do this on the basis of last in first out.

Unless she decides to wear stockings of course.....

Oh and good luck with this!

[Munter]

Davel said:

Sometimes they do this on the basis of last in first out.

Not unless they like their day in court they don't. (Unless people are in their "if we don't like you we'll tell you to ps off" trial period.

[Davel]

The OP clearly says that she has been there for less than two years, so it's a fair question.

It was also a consideration, suggested by my solicitor, when I took advice on letting one of the warehouse guys go earlier this year.

Edited by Davel on Friday 4th December 16:50