Is This Company Acting Illegally?

[speedchick]

Need some help/info from you guys.

The scenario is this, a mulitnational company, with the HQ over seas, and 3 plants in the UK. Each of the sites in the UK has more than one facility (it's manufacturing, so they have the make it plant, the warehouse and distribution area at each of the 3 sites)

Now the company in December decided that there were going to be redundancies, I only know the details of one of the UK sites, they were going to lose one of the buildings, lose a certain amount of staff over a period of time and so the consultation started.

Now some of the ones being made redundant left at the end of Feb, they were informed on the 9th and then finished on the 27th, the next few left in March, they were informed they were going by letter on the 24/25 and left on Friday the 27th.

Looking at the job sites tonight, I noticed that an advert for an agency looking for staff of a certain kind for a company in a certain town (I don't want to go into too many specifics), but it looked fishy. Have since found out from an employee at the company that there were two guys that left on Friday 27th, got their redundancy and were escorted off the premises, one of which started back at the factory on Monday as a temp for the agency.

Now the guys are getting a bit testy about this, as it seems that at one of the other sites, they cleared most of the permanent employees out and then took most of them back on as agency staff.

They have also been told that they expect it to be a very busy 3 months, there is no holidays to be taken, and they are even offering overtime.

So to me it seems that the company are not acting properly, and most probably not within the law, so any advice any of you guys could give would be appreciated.

We did think that the company would do something wrong at some point, but this seems to be a hell of a howler, oh and it is one of those places without a union.

Many thanks in advance

Edited by speedchick on Wednesday 1st April 22:05

Edited by speedchick on Wednesday 1st April 22:05

[jamesuk28]

This happens a lot, or at least I have heard of at least 5 cases very similair to this in the last 2 weeks. Not sure if its illegal or not, but seriously doubt it.

[Kermit power]

Isn't this what BMW did at the Mini plant in Cowley which hit the headlines recently when they then cut all those agency staff?

I'd assume if that is the case, that a lot of companies, I assume including this one, looked at the legal ramifications then and decided it was a rather good idea, even if it is an utterly repugnant one.

[speedchick]

But, if they are saying the positions are redundant then surely they shouldn't be taking on temps, at the same rate of pay to cover the guys they got rid of?

[MarkoTVR]

I don't know for sure, but I think it would only be an issue if the people re-hired via the agency were back performing a role which had been made 'redundant'.

If they're doing something different, there's no comeback.

[speedchick]

They are doing the same job they were doing previously and at the same rate of pay.

[Office_Monkey]

Have you spoken to ACAS?

[UpTheIron]

speedchick said:

They are doing the same job they were doing previously and at the same rate of pay.

But they are now employed for a different company. Unlikely to be breaking any employments laws IMHO.

There can be many sensible reasons for the above approach. Redundancies can take time to plan and execute. Getting rid of temp staff can be immediate. The original employer perhaps got their timing wrong, but by that point were already committed to their plan, and have had to re-hire temp staff until the work dries up.

[pugwash4x4]

UpTheIron said:

speedchick said:

They are doing the same job they were doing previously and at the same rate of pay.

But they are now employed for a different company. Unlikely to be breaking any employments laws IMHO.

There can be many sensible reasons for the above approach. Redundancies can take time to plan and execute. Getting rid of temp staff can be immediate. The original employer perhaps got their timing wrong, but by that point were already committed to their plan, and have had to re-hire temp staff until the work dries up.

Opening themselves right up to litigation imo

you make a ROLE redundant NOT a person. so the test has to be, does this job no longer need doing, or do we no longer want that particular person doing it?

If the guys are doing broadly the same work (but through a temp agency), and have been made redundant, then that redudancy is automatically unfair, no ifs, no buts.

Depends whether they want to persue it though- if the original Co end up paying an unfaire dismissal case, they MAY, be forced to give the original job back, if the tribunal only awards a monetary sum, then i would guess that the lads involved will have just sued their way out of agency work!

[Sagacitas]

I thought that once you make a position redundant you can not fill it for 6 months without opening yourself up to risk of getting done for unfair dismissal?

I'm not a legal eagle type (simply a man-manager) but I thought that was the case.

Richard