is this legal? - employment law question

[billb]

"an assistant" is 62. he had a normal contract up until 60 and then the employer put him on a yearly contract which they decide to renew each year. they have decided not to renew it so he's out of a job from next year and not at pensionable age.

can they do that? surely they have to offer redundancy?

[mr_tony]

If you're on a contract then both parties should honour the contract. If the contract says it's 12 months employment thats what it is - offers no obligation to continue the employment beyond 12 months - therefore no redundancy...

[wanty1974]

Hmmm... yes, does look like no legs to stand on, why did they sign the contract at 60 knowing this could happen?

We employ people up to 65 and then put them on annual contracts if they wish to stay with us.

[tonyvid]

Does he have continuous service with the same employer, if so, it could get sticky.

[L81]

What I've noticed a couple of times in my job (so has the wife in hers) is that employers can change your contract of employment without asking you, or getting your signature once they have - "Here's your new contract of employment, we've just made it uniform across the company, so you've all now got the same terms & conditions". Is this legal???? I know for a fact that the new contract is used (hence my piss-poor redundancy payment), but if an employer can change the terms of employment on the fly then what's the point in having one at all?

[Bennem]

Even if you are on a rolling contract and over the statutory limit of 2 years you are entitled to redundancy. Although it will be the statutory minimum, a weeks salary for every year.

Don't be fobbed off the old boy is entitled to it. Learned this in practice from being a contract employed scientist. Even if it is a short term contract and it ends this is effectively redundancy.

[themaskedavenger]

Yup redundancy is still applicable.

worth speaking to a person that knows the law as he may get more money by being pushed out then claiming against them than telling them what he is due and they give him the minimum.

Does that make sense? What I am trying to say is there may be more money in it if they make a mistake and he can sue.