Redundancy

[DownInTheDumps1]

I work in leisure & recreational services. I have two positions with separate contracts. I am a catering assistant for 20 hours and I also work in the crèche 5 hours a week.

The crèche is closing down and my employers have offered me an additional catering shift. This shift is on a day I currently don't work and doesn't suit my own childcare needs and would cost me as it's an extra round trip a week.

As far as I'm concerned I believe the two jobs are very different (regardless of whether I have the experience, training and qualifications) and that if my crèche position is ceasing my employers should pay me redundancy. My employers have told me that if I don't accept redeployment I will not be entitled to any payment.

What do you think?

I am also an HR professional, and I asked earlier what the OP’s employer’s redundancy policy actually said because it’s possible (but unlikely) that they go above legal requirements.

I've looked at the redundancy policy and it states-

•The elements of the job must be the same or similar to the existing role.

Crèche and catering have no similarities.

•Any change of shift pattern, hours,days and its effect on caring responsibilities must be taken into account.

The new catering shift they have suggested is either a weekday evening or a Saturday evening. This means going into work on a day I currently don't work. My crèche and catering roles were wrapped up in the same days.

This is what my TU is going on.

I'm not in a position to take on these new shifts due to childcare so it's not a matter of waving redundancy pay goodbye. I either get it or don't.

Well, that’s obviously completely different.

Why the ? I did state this on the OP.

As I've said I'm confused because of the differing advice on here, advice online and the advice of my TU.

Obviously I want to trust that TU is correct but I have my doubts.

You stayed nothing of the sort. You have your opinion. Nothing about what your employer’s Policy says. Hence we’ve advised you about the legal position. Your contractual rights here are different and now we can see where your TU rep is coming from.

I think there has been some confused advice on this thread.

The matter hinges on whether you have two separate contracts or whether you have one contract covering both posts.

Given that you have two separate contracts, the mere fact that the alternative you are being offered involves significantly different working patterns to the role which is potentially redundant will give you a very good chance of arguing that this is not a suitable alternative role, particularly since it will cause you childcare issues AS LONG AS your current contract doesn't have flexibility in it allowing your hours etc to be changed by the employer.

This is a complex area of law and so I'm not surprised that some people have been confused but you union rep needs to stand firm and if necessary review the caselaw on suitable alternative employment which will give you ample ammunition to fight this. The amount of redundancy payment you are entitled to will then depend on which role you commenced first. If your union rep is confused about this I would point them to the local government employers factsheet on redundancy in multiple contract situations.

Ask your tu rep to take advice from their branch/regional office
From what you are saying here they are giving you bad advice,

(I work full time for a tu)

Thanks everyone. My TU aren't confused at all, I am!

In my OP I stated 2 separate contracts, that the roles must be similar and that if I took an extra catering shift I would have to come into work on an entirely separate day.

My TU rep is head of branch

I'm not saying your TU are confused. They are right - a significant change in working hours and patterns is likely to give you a very good argument that an alternative is not a "suitable alternative employment role" in law. But it does depend on the precise wording of your contract and whether there is inbuilt flexibility and it is a confusing area of law and so I can see why others are confused.

The "different job" argument is not however a good one when you clearly have the skills and ability to do the alternative.

I will see what happens. I have to decline the new catering shifts due to childcare anyway. It's either payout or not.

Which role did you start first? If the creche role was a later role, your payment will only date back to the start of that role anyway and so it might not be as large as you are expecting.

I'm not "confused" thanks. The OP's TU rep has advised her that the alternative role must be similar in terms of role content, which is absolutely not the case. The OP had not until just now given details of to what extent the proposed alternative differs in terms of hours or other conditions, other than saying it involves coming in on a different day. 9 - 2 on Tuesday compared to 9 - 2 on Thursday would be very similar, for example.

Refusing the alternative on the basis that the role content is not the same as advised by her TU rep would be a mistake, as in terms of content, the role is perfectly suitable.

Refusing it on the basis of very different hours and childcare difficulties would be different.

Yes, crèche was second role and if I'm entitled to a payment it won't be much!

I didn't mention you flowery. I was trying to tactfully say that some of those who have said that this is definitely suitable alternative employment are wrong.

The OP says that she would be required to work weekday evenings or weekends in the catering alternative and that she has childcare issues. Whether a role is suitable alternative employment is dependent on the individual's own circumstances.

The normal legal position is that the job can be different and I don't believe this is what the OP should focus on - however if the Op's redundancy policy is contractual (which it may well be since I suspect the OP is public sector - possibly education?) then this will add further complication for the employer and give the TU a lot of ammunition.