Job deleted

[Trinidading3]

My post has been deleted , I work part time and it's being replaced with full time. I cannot do this due to family commitments.
Should I take voluntary redundancy or wait for compulsory redundancy? It's all new to me. If I take voluntary when does my job end?

Is there no opportunity for a job share?

Are you in the trade union? They should be able to advise you.

Have they said why it can’t be done as a job share or two p/t posts?

@Trinidading3

My post has been deleted , I work part time and it's being replaced with full time. I cannot do this due to family commitments. Should I take voluntary redundancy or wait for compulsory redundancy? It's all new to me. If I take voluntary when does my job end?

Personally I would let matters unfold naturally, i.e. not volunteer for redundancy. During consultation you should have the opportunity to suggest alternatives such as job share.

If you did volunteer your last day would be whatever is discussed between you and your employer, nobody on here could possibly know as it would not be a matter of legislation.

Have they offered you terms for voluntary redundancy?
They are usually more generous than if you wait for compulsory redundancy

Either way, get your CV polished up and start looking for new roles

Is voluntary redundancy on offer?

How long have you been in your job?

What attempts have been made to find alternative solutions to the need for more hours?

If the hours are increasing not decreasing this is not a redundancy situation. That doesn’t stop them offering you money and calling it “voluntary redundancy” if both parties agree to it. Has that been offered to you and has it been made clear what will happen if you don’t accept it?

Have you been offered redundancy, do you qualify for it? How long have you worked there? There is no automatic right to vr and they may expect you to work notice either way.

I'm an employment lawyer.

You really need to query why the role can't be done by 2 part timers. The definition of redundancy is - basically - a decline in work. This is not that, and so I'm not clear why there is a redundancy situation. If it was a role that could be done by one part time person and didn't require full time availability, it looks really odd that it can't be done by 2 part timers.

You are only entitled to claim redundancy as a type of unfair dismissal (or get a redundancy payment ) if you've been employed for more than 2 years. I assume this is the case from the info you have shared, but a claim for indirect sex discrimination (assuming you are a woman and have primary care commitments) doesn't require any length of service.

Are you certain this is genuine, and not some targettted way of getting rid of you for other reasons? It looks very very fishy. I would begin by challenging the fact that there is a redundancy situation at all because I don't think the legal test for that is met.

In terms of offering them a carrot, can you increase your hours/days a bit, but not work full time? It might help.

Defo contact your union if you are in one; also check car and house insurance because they often include legal cover as an extra.

I'd really advise challenging this though: 1) it is not a redundancy situation at all; 2) it is indirect sex discrimination. Put the above in a grievance.

This is the legal definition of redundancy - taken from section 139 Employment Rights Act 1996. There is NOT redundancy situation at all, and so providing you have 2 years service, I think this would be an unfair dismissal even if they followed all the procedures. I would recommend going down the sex discrimination route as well though.

139Redundancy.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—
(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—
(i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or
(ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

@LewishamMum

I'm an employment lawyer.

You really need to query why the role can't be done by 2 part timers. The definition of redundancy is - basically - a decline in work. This is not that, and so I'm not clear why there is a redundancy situation. If it was a role that could be done by one part time person and didn't require full time availability, it looks really odd that it can't be done by 2 part timers.

You are only entitled to claim redundancy as a type of unfair dismissal (or get a redundancy payment ) if you've been employed for more than 2 years. I assume this is the case from the info you have shared, but a claim for indirect sex discrimination (assuming you are a woman and have primary care commitments) doesn't require any length of service.

Are you certain this is genuine, and not some targettted way of getting rid of you for other reasons? It looks very very fishy. I would begin by challenging the fact that there is a redundancy situation at all because I don't think the legal test for that is met.

In terms of offering them a carrot, can you increase your hours/days a bit, but not work full time? It might help.

Defo contact your union if you are in one; also check car and house insurance because they often include legal cover as an extra.

I'd really advise challenging this though: 1) it is not a redundancy situation at all; 2) it is indirect sex discrimination. Put the above in a grievance.

Are you sure you are an employment lawyer?

1. redundancy is when a role is no longer required. Expanding companies make people redundant because they’ve had restructures. If the company went a full time staff member, than yes, that’s what they’ve decided and the PT is no longer required. Ditto the opposite way.

2. you can claim unfair dismissal at any point. It’s just harder before two years because generally the first two years a person can be dismissed without reason (aka two year probation). However most employment contracts have probation periods much shorter than two years. So check your contract.

3. don’t be dumb. If they need a full time worker of staff they wouldn’t be spending £10k a year extra just to get rid of her - because she could apply for the full time job.

I can't comment on whether LewishamMum is an employment lawyer but they certainly know the law better than you. Indeed, they have quoted the relevant legislation.

1. Redundancy is when there is a reduced requirement for the particular job, either in that location or generally. Companies often use the term "redundancy" inappropriately when they are restructuring because that is a term everyone understands but it is absolutely not a legal redundancy when a part time role is converted to full time.

2. It is not just harder to claim unfair dismissal for the first two years of employment. It is impossible unless you have been dismissed for a reason that is classed as "automatically unfair". Sacking someone because the employer wants to make a part time role into a full time one is not automatically unfair so, if the OP has less than 2 years service, she has no protection.

3. LewishamMum is not being dumb. She is correctly setting out the OP's legal rights. And yes, some employers do insist they need a full time employee rather than two part time ones as a way of getting rid of a member of staff.

@BettyBurntBuns how can you expect us to take you seriously when you're criticising someone for their lack of employment law knowledge yet you post utter rubbish like:

you can claim unfair dismissal at any point. It’s just harder before two years because generally the first two years a person can be dismissed without reason (aka two year probation)

AKA nothing! 2 years' service history is nothing to do with your made-up term, two year probation. probation is set by the employer, 2 years' service history, when an employee gains enhanced employment rights is set in law. There's no such thing as 2 years' probation!

At least get your garbled facts right before you throw your weight around on here.

There's a charity called Working Families that gave me excellent advice in this situation, much better than my union.

It is possible that a restructure (and potentially overall increase in headcount) could still be a redundancy situation - which would come under subsection (b) quoted above.
I obviously can't get proper advice based on the info that's been shared, but it does look fishy (to use the technical legal expression :). OP doesn't mention a broader restructure, just that her job is being turned from part time to full time which she can't do.
It is not impossible that is a redundancy situation but it is unlikely, and I would certainly suggest OP challenges this assertion in writing asap (whilst also making a sex discrimination/caring responsibilities argument). It was just advice for how OP should proceed.....

Not heard of Working Families myself. There's quite of lot of charity/advice things out there. I'm not saying don't use them, but I don't think OP would be strongly advised to put in writing asap that a) this is not a redundancy situation and quote the law b) it's indirect sex discrimination because of her caring role c) if she can try to offer and give them a bit of carrot - slight increase in days/hours; willing to be flexible on moving days to help get a job share...etc. There's no legal requirement for the latter, but she wants to keep her job and that attitude and willingness will help her do that (or worse case scenario, will look good at a tribunal).

Thanks so much for your advice, yes you are correct it's a fishy situation. Back in Jan I wrote a 11 point letter to HR stating it's not safe to work due Health and Safety (Covid) situation.
They begrudgingly allowed me to work from home. At the moment my husband is very ill and I am off sick with the stress of it. On the 1st August the new structure will be implemented. I feel like I have might have a Employment Tribunal case. They have promised a HR job to the other part timer and I asked via a consultation if this was true and they blantly lied about it. Basically it's all set how they want things to roll, but I feel like I should take them to the cleaners so to speak! I have worked there for 4 years and 6 months.

@Trinidading3

Thanks so much for your advice, yes you are correct it's a fishy situation. Back in Jan I wrote a 11 point letter to HR stating it's not safe to work due Health and Safety (Covid) situation. They begrudgingly allowed me to work from home. At the moment my husband is very ill and I am off sick with the stress of it. On the 1st August the new structure will be implemented. I feel like I have might have a Employment Tribunal case. They have promised a HR job to the other part timer and I asked via a consultation if this was true and they blantly lied about it. Basically it's all set how they want things to roll, but I feel like I should take them to the cleaners so to speak! I have worked there for 4 years and 6 months.

@BettyBurntBuns is speaking utter tosh on all three counts so please ignore, and @LewishamMum has it bang on. (I’m also an employment lawyer).

Reading your update it sounds like you have another potential claim based on your health and safety disclosure - I’d really recommend speaking to a lawyer who can assess the situation properly. If they want you out then a negotiated settlement could be the way to go, but I suspect any offer won’t initially be anywhere near enough, so you really do need proper legal advice!