When you say "entitled to redundancy" to you mean "entitles to redundancy payment".
If so, and you are taking an alternative role then the answer is no.
I'm not sure why you feel that what they are proposing is "using" you - quash they are proposing is absolutely the right thing to do - offering you a temporary role which will keep you employed at the same level for a while longer.
It doesn't sound like they are trying to get themselves out of paying redundancy payment at all.
Will try and make long story short. Worked at the company for 3 years. Due to come back in April from Maternity. Informed management position at risk and now it will be redundant. I was asked, during the consultation period if I wanted to put a case forward. I suggested a couple of options, one of which the CEO sounds like he is going to go with. Basically, I suggested a significant demotion of the role from Manager to Officer level and one day less (was 3 before ML, he is now proposing 2 days). If this is the case, as it is a new role, on new contract, t's & c's, would I still be entitled to redundancy?
Also, to further complicate matters, another manager, who's role is not affected, is going on maternity and the CEO has indicated to me that they will offer me a contract to cover her ML. Whilst this is an equivalent role in terms of salary to what I had before redundancy, its not permanent - could be 6 months or 12. Therefore could they class this as a suitable alternative role and get themselves out of paying redundancy?
Part of me feels like telling them to stuff off but I've had no luck getting any other employment as yet, so I may have to "use" them as they are using me. I'm not proud, just do what I need to to pay the mortgage.
Any experience of this anyone? Flowers to anyone with advice