I got fired today!!

Then you'd be wrong. Constructive Dismissal (or Constructive Unfair Dismissal to use its correct legal name) comes about when an employer does something which makes the employee's employment untenable (e.g. non-payment of wages, unsafe working conditions, or a serious breach of contract) and gives them no choice but to resign. OP has not resigned - she has been dismissed due to her role becoming redundant.
The failure of an employer to engage in meaningful consultation with employees in a redundancy situation can result in Unfair Dismissal claims, but with fewer than two years' continuous service OP has no legal protection from Unfair Dismissal unless it's due to discrimination (which is a day one right) or because it's for a reason that is automatically unfair, and we've established that neither of these is the case for OP.
The only other claim OP might be able to make is for Wrongful Dismissal, but that would only apply if her former employer fails to pay her final salary (PILON, untaken annual leave, expenses if applicable, etc.) correctly and OP has not said they have failed to do this.
As an aside, the right to protection from Unfair Dismissal is due to be reduced from two years' continuous service to six months' continuous service as part of the impending Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to be enacted in 2027.

Maybe put your energies into finding a new job OP and stop trying to pursue your old company for a claim.
They have been rubbish but you also had your part to play in being unreliable.

Just focus on the future, you do not have a claim.

Redundancy is still a dismissal, it's "dismissal by reason of redundancy".

And no, there is no unfair dismissal claim possible as you have under two years service. The same applies to constructive dismissal (which is a form of unfair dismissal), and lack of redundancy consultation (that would also be an unfair dismissal claim, for which you need two years' service). And no redundancy pay under two years.

And as they are paying your notice, there is no wrongful dismissal or breach of contract claim either.

Being made redundant vs being dismissed is a bit academic. You don't have to tell anyone why you left the job and it's highly unlikely it would appear on a reference.

Could you be any more desperate for any excuse to have a claim up. Even though you admit you could have had less "sick" time and the amount you took is clearly unacceptable in such a short period of time.

Do better.

That's a result! Much better to have redundancy as the reason for the job ending.

They are supposed to follow a policy for making people redundant. But if you value your sanity I'd just try to find another job. Employment Tribunals are stressful and expensive.

You do need to try to sort the period pain out though. Have you tried everything- Mefanaemic Acid, the coil?

Wow. This is obviously a strategy being used by some businesses. It is underhand. I am glad you pursued them despite some of the “expert” advice on here because this is a much better outcome for you. They also did you a favour - saving you from working for such an awful company.

I was let go recently with a weeks notice too. Well left immediately then paid a week
“overstaffed”
I had only been there 8 weeks and they got rid of all us new staff

I agree with you, she won’t get any more pay and it looks better on the CV, so she is in a better position than before.

There really isn't any point paying for legal advice. They have actually done her a favour by saying she is being made redundant. She's been there less than 2 years, they can get rid of her without good reason. And when she applies for a new job, being able to say she was made redundant rather than sacked is obviously more advantageous for her. Either way, they want her gone. She needs to take the "redundancy". If she tries to fight, they may just decide to change it back to sacking her due to her absences.

I actually think you have more grounds for constructive dismissal in this situation… if the paperwork has said you have been dismissed for redundancy reasons and they haven’t followed any process including some basic consultation. I would suggest you get legal advice, but you probably wouldn’t get much more pay/compensation than what is already being offered!

be pleased you are no longer working for them, they sound terrible

@Amiunemployable Giving the reason as redundancy is a heck of a lot better than being dismissed because of your sickness absence when you have to tell any prospective new employer why you left your last one after just two months. I'd count this as a win if I were you OP.

An employee has to have at least two years' continuous service to receive statutory redundancy pay and I doubt contractual redundancy would be paid by any employer for service shorter than this either.

When applying for another job, being able to say you left your last employment because you were made redundant, looks better than being sacked.

What he said may not have been a complete lie- the time off may have been a factor between you not being kept on. There us often a criteria being followed and performance, sickness, timekeeping etc could all be factors on the list, used to score everyone. The tine off may have gone against you if others hadn't taken any time off sick.

did you get redundancy pay?

If an employer is following ACAS' best practice they should provide a reason. The reason your former employer gave you was that they found your level of sick leave unacceptable - this wasn't "false" even if it seems like they may have the number of days wrong because this was their reason. (And to be fair, three days absence per month for the first two months would still be too many for most employers.)
The problem you have with fewer than two years' continuous service is that you have limited legal rights and in order to bring a claim to ET, you need to have legal grounds on which your claim is based. The limited rights you have from day one of employment are:

• Protection against discrimination
• Entitlement to notice periods (statutory or contractual)
• Protection from automatic unfair dismissal (e.g. for whistleblowing, pregnancy, etc.)

It's already been discussed at length on this thread that your absence was not related to your disability (and furthermore you didn't notify your employer of your disability for them to consider) so you can't use the first ground.
Your employer gave you the required notice so, as long as they pay you PILON and any accrued annual leave in your final payslip, you cannot use the second ground.
You have not been dismissed for a reason that is automatically unfair so you cannot use the third ground.
In summary OP, you have no legal grounds to bring a claim to ET.

Yes you do sound vaguely unemployable, just on the basis that you are absent from work frequently. Maybe you need to seek the kind of job that suits your disability, part time, no bright lighting etc, would it be best to be self-employed?

It's true that employers don't need to give a reason for terminating any employment <2years except that if there's any possibility that the reason could be discriminatory, there is protection against that. So if eg someone who has been working somewhere for 14 months informs their employer that she is pregnant and is then sacked soon after, the company needs an absolutely watertight case that the sacking wasn't linked to the pregnancy (eg emails with management discussing potential sacking between themselves, dated before the pregnancy announcement).

This is unlikely to help you because your absence wasn't really due to disability - or perhaps some instances were related to a disability that you didn't disclose so didn't give the employer's a chance to accommodate. It would be difficult to show discrimination in your case.

This is to help businesses to have the confidence to create jobs and recruit. If allowing someone to start work grants them immediate protection then you are going to be extremely cautious about letting anyone start because you have no proof that this person will actually bring a beneficial impact to the business. With the 2 year rule, a new employee has plenty of time to demonstrate that they are an asset to the company and are worth their pay. Recruiting is expensive, companies don't generally sack competent employees who are achieving the goals for their role but they are allowed to deal with it quickly and easily if they accidentally recruit someone who isn't going to be able to achieve what the role needs to achieve. It's impossible to be 100% sure just on the basis of a CV and interview, but in the vast majority of cases a new employee will show that their recruitment wasn't a mistake well within the first year.

What is your disability OP?

Yes. Unless you have protected characteristics which give you rights from day one, within the first two years you can be sacked without them even giving a reason. You have a health condition, but you haven’t given much detail about it, so there’s no guarantee that it would meet the definition of a disability under the Equality Act, and you haven’t declared it to the employer. At this point unfortunately it does look as though you have no case - even if you declared your health condition now and it met the definition of disability, your absences were not directly due to it, so you would have no protection.

This. Many posters don’t seem to recognise that protected characteristics are not conferred for every disability - there are rules and regulations and they have to be met in order to be eligible. OP isn’t covered whether or not she declares her disability because her absences were not down to that disability. And there are no details to confirm whether her condition would have met the definition of disability under the EA20.

Time out of what? Op had less than two years service, so can be dismissed without them even needing to state a reason.
No tribunal will take her case on, because the company don’t have a case to answer.