Is this redundancy?

[Redundancyquery]

DH has worked for his employer for more than 2 years. He has fixed hours stated in his contract. After a few months he suggested that work pattern B (shifting his hours slightly earlier) would be more helpful. That was accepted.

Over the last few years his employer has required him to change his work hours 4 times because other staff made requests that would require him to change his hours. It has always been presented as 'fait accompli' and he's been told, essentially, not to rock the boat because if x leaves they won't be replaced.

Then, he was told that a certain event had been arranged on a regular basis on his non-working day, but he was required to take turns in accommodating the event. Sometimes this involves popping over at the start and finish, other times it requires a whole day of attendance. Then, it turned out that nobody else on his team was willing to stay if the whole day is required, so it fell to him.

He is far too nice and has accepted all of this.

Now, the organisation needs to save money, so they are stopping one job role, and changing his role. He has so far been told that it will likely involve a change of hours, but no details are yet available of the scope of the job description or the pay. Given that they need to save money, I can only presume the pay for the new role will be lower.

His manager has said it won't be a redundancy situation as another role is being offered. I'm not sure this is true.

Same hours - different time of day/diff days - not a redundancy.

if his role changes substantively, or hours reduce. That could be redundancy.

Does he want redundancy (statutory redundancy pay not that significant unless you have been there ages)? Or would he rather stay in the job and maybe look for something he likes more if it doesn’t suit.

The employer can avoid a redundancy if they offer a "suitable" alternative role. I guess you'll have to wait and see what the role/package is before you can determine whether it's suitable.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any legal definition of "suitable".I imagine a significant reduction in salary would arguably be grounds for claiming it isunsuitable. But I'm no lawyer!

If i understand correctly, your dh could risk losing any redundancy pay if he were to "unreasonably" refuse a "suitable alternative. Again, I don't think there is a definition of "unreasonable".

I think he would be entitled to a shortish trial period if he were to accept the alternative role.

the bigger Q here is whether he wants to stay or go? There is no prize for spotting something that could be a redundancy - if you don’t get dismissed then that’s normally good. Unless there is some massive enhanced redundancy scheme they are trying to avoid paying then sounds like it’s good he’s not been dismissed and if he doesn’t like the role as is he should be talking to them about what would work and looking for other options.

I think they have been gradually eroding the terms and conditions by playing on his good will. I think it's a substantial change to go from, potentially, a single shift in a day to a split shift. He's already been going in on a non-contracted day because they've arranged something then realised they need someone to cover it and decided it's him.

We'll wait and see. He's looking at alternatives. In his line of work he's pretty much at the top tier and lots of organisations can't afford that, or can't afford a full-time employee to do what he does, so it makes it more of a careful search unless he wants to go further afield. However, the flip side is that not many people tend to apply for the role, so when one does come, he can normally walk into it.