Talk

Advanced search

Redundancy Advice

(11 Posts)
Minty98765 Sun 12-Feb-17 11:35:03

Hi, I'm hoping some people can give me some advice on my current situation.

I have worked for my current employer for around 6 years of which the last 2.5 I have worked part time - I have worked 4 days a week and always had the same day off each week in the middle of the week.

My company is going thought a restructure and I have been mapped to a new role which came with a condition. This was that on the first week of each month I have to work 5 days in that week. In my current role I'm not required to work any weeks full time.

Having thought about this it's not going to work for me. I can't find any nursery that will take my 2 kids for this additional day only as the nursery says I would have to take this day every week otherwise which means I would have to pay for another 4 days a month of nursery fees. I also don't want to work every day of the week and I don't want my kids to be in nursery for more than 2 days in a row.

At my consultation meeting I was told if I didn't accept this role with the condition I worked one week a month full time I would have to resign and not be offered redundancy.

I'm really grateful that my company are trying to find me a role but the one being offered seems to me to be a significant change and therefore it feels like unless they can offer me a similar role where I get a day off each week I should be offered redundancy.

Appreciate any help and advice.

Thanks

user1486613612 Sun 12-Feb-17 15:59:05

Are you sure you'd be "obliged" to resign yourself and not be offered redundancy? Sounds odd.

Could you arrange for a nanny for that one day, once a month? Or ask some elderly relative. That will buy you time. Then you can resign somewhat later on, if need be. If it is as you say - obliged to resign and take no redundancy - it's same-same but later, but you have bought yourself the opportunity to think it over and not rush into a solution that you might regret. It's probably unlikely to easily find a similar role working 2 + 2 and having one day off in the middle of the week, plus the week-end, so that opportunity might be lost anyway.

Newtssuitcase Sun 12-Feb-17 16:01:46

It sounds like they are trying to say that the new role is suitable alternative employment. If you are offered a "suitable alternative employment" role and you refuse it then you are no longer entitled to a redundancy payment. However, any role with a change like this in one of the main terms of employment (which hours will always be) will not be a suitable alternative employment role.

As such you can refuse the role and point out to them that the offer did not amount to SAE and therefore you are still entitled to a redundancy payment. I'm an employment lawyer.

Minty98765 Sun 12-Feb-17 16:23:20

Thanks very much for the advice. I have my next meeting early this week so I will mention the suitable alternative employment with reference to the hours.

Newtssuitcase Sun 12-Feb-17 16:26:54

They might try to say that because it is only one day a month then it's a minimal change.

Id see what they say and then say you need to take further advice.

Minty98765 Sun 12-Feb-17 16:30:39

Yes that is exactly what they are saying. But to me because I have 2 kids with one of them not even 18 months I value my day off every week with them and also I can't find a nursery who will let me put them in for that additional day without paying full time every week which I can't afford. That's why I thought this change is not reasonable to me. Does it make a difference if it is reasonable to me personally or just reasonable to a typical person?

Pootle40 Sun 12-Feb-17 16:35:11

Agree with previous poster. They either think it's a 'suitable alternative' or are hoping to get away with that. It is a fairly minimal change; they would be shaky ground saying it was full time all the time. However with respect a suitable alternative, I would say you are not unreasonably refusing it; you have given it consideration but for childcare reasons you cannot do it and therefore you may still be entitled to redundancy.

Pootle40 Sun 12-Feb-17 16:36:21

They should take into account your personal circumstances, what's reasonable to them might not be to the individual and I would push for redundancy on those grounds

HaPPy8 Sun 12-Feb-17 16:37:58

I think the poster above has a good point though - how easily do you think will find a role with your current hours elsewhere? Could your partner take one days leave a month in the short term to cover this?

EweAreHere Sun 12-Feb-17 16:40:48

It sounds like they're trying to force you out without having to pay you redundancy, tbh. They know it 'might' not be a SAE, but they're hoping that they can get it labelled a minimal change to get around it.

Because, let's be hones. 1 extra day a month will make fuck all difference to any position. It will. It sounds like a farce.

I'd be looking elsewhere anyway if you win. They may be in some interesting financial difficulties if they're pulling stunts like this.

Minty98765 Sun 12-Feb-17 17:08:06

Thanks everyone. I'm not ready yet to go full time and don't want to put my little ones in nursery for a full week at the moment. If they were school age then I would be open to what is being asked but at the moment it feels unreasonable due to both the financial side of things with the extra nursery costs and I don't want to miss out on time with my kids when they are so little.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now