Yet another redundancy question

[oldbanger]

There's a situation developing at work which I'd like some advice on, even though I am currently a bystander.

During the last lot of cuts, 2 members of staff were (and still are) on mat leave and were guaranteed jobs. Two other members of staff were kept on to provide maternity cover. They are still on permanent contracts but their contract states that they are in their respective roles until the end of the mat cover, in a couple of months time, when they will again be at risk of redundancy.

Since then they have both been told that they will be made redundant even if the mat leave pair elect not to return, as the roles have now been marked only for people currently in the redeployment pool now (none of whom have ever done the job).

Now I understand that if they were temp staff, they would have no rights to stay, but these are permanent staff, well past their 4th year in the job, and up to a few months ago were permanently in these exact same posts. They will be removed so that other staff can be placed in the posts (no change of post number, nuthin) and they have been explicityly told this.

Surely this is against employment law? I am a little concerned that my employer may be laying themselves open here.

Edited by oldbanger on Tuesday 29th March 20:37

[Spitfire2]

Sounds wrong from start to finish.

Being on maternity leave is no guarantee of a job in a redundancy situation - so if they didn't consider the Mat Leave people fairly for the roles alongside the others I believe laws were being broken.

Then, to state to someone not at risk that they will be made redundant in favour of other staff currently in redeployment - well that sounds like something which can only end badly if the employees take it to tribunal.

[oldbanger]

Spitfire2 said:

Sounds wrong from start to finish.

Being on maternity leave is no guarantee of a job in a redundancy situation - so if they didn't consider the Mat Leave people fairly for the roles alongside the others I believe laws were being broken.

Then, to state to someone not at risk that they will be made redundant in favour of other staff currently in redeployment - well that sounds like something which can only end badly if the employees take it to tribunal.

Apparently the new equality act that came in last year, does now allow women on mat leave to be given priority in redundancy situations, this was questioned at length at the time.

The thing is, I seriously suspect that our upper management don't realise that these two are still permies rather than contract staff - HR are pretty poor communicators here at the best of times.

[Spitfire2]

Ah - I must be out of date.

Hopefully some sense will prevail ....

[edc]

The definition of priority in such case is not first dibs on any job. There are some interesting cases in this area. Simpson vs endsleigh is one I came across recently. However, this is all a bit of a moot point for the OP. As an aside fewer people use criteria such as length of service as they are no use in assessing performance. Normally, whether the redundancy scenario occurs due to cost reduction or restructure then employers want the best performers. That is not always the ones with the most skills or experience.

It would make sense that those who on mat cover have been given extended leave dates. That should not preclude them from being redeployed to suitable alternatives where appropriate.

Edited by edc on Wednesday 30th March 22:23

[scirocco265]

It is unfortunate that it is never clear to employers that law regarding Maternity Leave and Redundancy. Unfortunately though, it will always be cheaper to get rid of the man/woman not on Mat Leave rather than the woman who is.

An interesting bit of case law though:

http://www.thelawyer.com/eversheds-layoff-programm...