Do they have to pay me redundancy if they want to change me to zero hours?

[zerohoursquery]

I have worked as a teacher for a FE college for 5 years, full time, permanent. My whole department has been put under notice of redundancy. However, when we went to the consultation meeting, they said we could just change to a zero hours contract and keep our jobs. However, would they not still have to pay us redundancy? Can they even do this as surely if the job is still there, they cannot make us redundant?

I feel like I have to like it or lump it but am not sure this is legal.

Thanks

Interesting question which I suspect will come up at other FE establishments in months to come as financial cutbacks hit. I wouldn't have thought they have to pay you redundancy as technically you are still employed even if realistically only on a sessional basis. Often if you are reemployed within a short period by same employer you also forfeit the payment.

I would think that they would have to make your full time permanent post redundant in order to replace it with a completely different job with no permanent hours at all.

Thanks, it just seems wrong that they can change me to a zero hours contract like this.

I don't think they can make such a huge change to terms and conditions without consultation. Do you belong to a union?

Do they actually need the department?

Sounds like they are trying to get you on to zero hours contracts - expecting you to accept the contract and keep a job.

what if you all said no thanks, we'll take the redundancy money?

It sounds like they're trying to pull a fast one to me.

They do need some people in the department and are now saying there is no redundancy money on offer for those of us being offered the zero hours contracts - the staff they want to keep because we still have just as much work to do.

Our union rep was made redundant in the last round of redundancies and hasn't been replaced so we have sent in a request to the regional office for help.

I just think it is a way to change Ts and Cs. Very upsetting all round

Redundancy money isn't something they "offer", it is a legal entitlement if your job is redundant.

And if your job is no longer needed, they can't just hire somebody else (or you!) to do it for less money/worse conditions.

I think what they are trying to argue is that the zero hours role is "suitable alternative employment" and you are therefore not entitled to a redundancy payment if you accept it.

Their need for employees to work on a permanent basis has ceased or diminished - hence their argument for redundancy as essevtiaklyessentually your existing role has disappeared. To be replaced with a zero hours one.

There are trial periods if you accept SAU (think it's 4 weeks but would need to check the statute). If you don't this the role is suitable, you can then advise your employer and you are entitled to your redundancy payment and notice etc.

If you unreasonably turn down a role that is suitable, you're not entitled to a redundancy payment. That said, I have never seen that argued by an employer. I think a Tribunal would be sympathetic to an employee in these circumstances and find that a redundancy payment should have been made as ultimately it's for the employee to decide what is suitable or not - given their own particular circumstances.

But I will be teaching the exact same course in the same locations for the same number of hours as at present, so it isn't an alternative job, just different terms and conditions and a different employment status.