ET - My ex-employer is changing the reason they dismissed me

[CrumblungUnderHobnobCrumbs]

Hi. I've posted before about my ET claim for unfair dismissal and got some fab advice so can I be cheeky and ask for a bit more please? Union are crap and I've finally dumped them. Looking into getting proper legal help but in the meantime could I get some opinions please?

I'm trying not to drip feed but at the same time this is messy and I don't want my post to run to pages so am trying to keep it to headlines only.

In reality I was made redundant due to a breakdown in work relationships.

However my actual notice of dismissal and paperwork shows I was dismissed because of "redundancy" and throughout the process it was called "redundancy", it followed the "redundancy policy" and I was given "redundancy pay". No other reasons or explanations. During this time my role was still very much in existance (the work was picked up by colleagues) and therefore my argument is that I could not have been made "redundant".

I submitted my ET claim for unfair dissmissal. The organisation replied:
"^The reason for dismassal was redundancy which is a potentially fair reason under section 98(2) of the employment rights act 1996.
Without prejudiceand as alternative to the above the claimant was dismissed for "some other substantial reason" which is potentially fair reason under section 98 (1)(b) of the employment rights act 1996^".

Can I just check that I have understood this please? Part 2 states they can dismiss me for:
A. capability,
B. conduct,
C. redundancy or
D. because of law/regulations
And Part 1b says they can dismiss me for any of these reasons or for any other "substantial" reason.

So in other words, they are saying that they made me redundant (2c) and if they weren't allowed to do that then they dismissed me under another substantial reason (1b).

But 2c and 1b are different?

Can they actually argue that? Either they implimented 2c or 1b they can't just go through the list until the judge likes one of them surely?

If the judge agrees it was 1b does that mean all my paperwork showing 2c is incorrect?

During my dismissal process my actions were in response to being made redundant (2c). If I was actually dismissed under 1b I would have taken a different course of action eg asked for evidence of the substantial reason, challenged what could be done regarding the relationship/ask for mediation etc.

If it is 1b what should my paperwork say?

And that was an edited version of my original post! Thank you.

Did you know at the time of your dismissal that it was due to redundancy? Did you accept or reject their redundancy payment? Were they aware at the time why you rejected it (if indeed you did)?

Was the redundancy payment they offered you equivalent or similar to what you might get at Tribunal - you can calculate it depending on your claim.

I'm trying to understand why you didnt take the "bird in the hand" Ie the redundancy payoff (which is tax free), but instead want to take them to Tribunal which wont necessarily put you in a better financial position and might even leave you worse off, and very stressed.

I take it you realise that an employer can engineer the end of a problematic workplace relationship by making a redundancy payment on paper, provided both parties agree that it's in everyone's best interests to draw a line under things and move onwards. It can be advantageous particularly due to the redundancy being tax free and it sanitises it for the employee because they can put redundancy on a "reason for leaving" section of a future job application.

I am thinking that you are the poster that didn't have the Union's support for taking your employer to Tribunal - is that the case? Is it really likely that the Tribunal will come up with an award greater than the redundancy payment (as daisychain says above)?

Personally I fear not Cotswold - not least because legal fees could take a significant chunk, unless the OP has the expertise to create the court bundle, know all the strict timetable to adhere to, and represent themselves at Tribunal. That's a lot to expect anyone to do on their own.

Daisychain if it's the OP I'm thinking of, this was pointed out on a previous thread too. I hope it isn't!

You should bite their hand off if they’ve agreed to call it redundancy. Looks far better on your CV for future employers.

No they aren’t doing anything wrong, this is how employers respond to ET claims frequently.

They’ve been a bit stupid parcelling it as redundancy when it’s really due to SOSR without getting you to sign a settlement agreement :/