These redundancy terms seem so unfair

[DottyWottyDooDah]

DH is a FE lecturer and has been informed today that he will be made redundant.

He has taught at this establishment since 2002, always as many hours as they offered (variable depending on courses/modules running etc) mostly 3-4 days per week.

In 2002 the establishment only employed lecturers through a particular agency, except for the department head, so he had to sign up to said agency.
4 years ago he was given a contract for 2 1/2 days and topped up as necessary with agency hours.

His redundancy package will only include service for which he was employed by them, not the 6 years of preceeding service via the agency, at their stipulation.

So, it's not fair, but legally would he have grounds to challenge what they consider 'service'?

It's not completely clear, but if he was employed by the agency and his hours with them are being reduced too, they ought to be paying redundancy for their proportion and based on his service with them.

I think he needs to take advice from someone who can sit down and look at contracts, engagement letters etc t properly establish who has been the employer and how his employment has come to move from agency to college

But he only has 4 1/2 years continuous employment.

It sucks but I don't think you can legally challenge it. May be wrong tho.

Thank you.
Firstly, I didn't realise he had redundancy entitlement from the agency!
He has been employed in the same role for 10 years, but the first 6 through the agency completely, the latter 4 mostly on contract with the college, occasionally topped up with agency hours.
I think you're right he needs specific advice for his situation. Who from? A solicitor?

Book a half hour free consultation with a good solicitor (ask around for recommendations) all good firms will offer this. Good luck, redundancy is a shock but good things will come out of it that's what I tell myself anyway x

Thanks :)