HELP! Due back to work in Jan 09 and complicated redundancy situation

[expo]

Right this has all been going round and round in my head and I need someone who knows the law to advise me on this.

1. Went on maternity leave in March 2008. Have given notice in September 2008 that I am coming back to work Jan 5th 2009. So far so good.

1. In the role I was in before I left, I was employed 5 days a week. I was technically in a 3 day a week job share but because the other 3 day a week person was on maternity leave herself, I was covering the job on a 5 day a week contract and pay and conditions.

1. Just after I went on maternity leave in Mar 2009, one of the 3 day a week job share roles got cut. The other person returned from maternity leave and resumed her position in the remaining 3 days a week role.

1. I am due back to work on Jan 5th 2009. They have been busy trying to find me a "suitable alternative vacancy" but have not found one. Therefore on Dec 11th 2008 I was:

a. offered the remaining 3 day a week job share role - putting the other person at risk of redundancy

OR

b. I could put myself "at risk" of redundancy.

Now I don't want to work 3 days a week (I actually want to go back 4 days a week), so really my only option is to put myself "at risk" of redundancy.

My questions:

1. Is this the correct procedure?
2. I have now got used to the redundancy option. I would be "at risk" for 3 months from the December date. I am now scared they will find me some new job. What have I the right to refuse without forfeiting my redundancy pay.

Complicated I know.

Thank you for your help.

I'm a bit confused. So there were 2 3-day roles. Person A who had one of those roles was on maternity leave, so you were doing both roles on a full time basis.

You went on maternity leave, person A returned to her job and the other 3 day role was cut.

They have been trying to find you a suitable alternative so far without success. Now they are offering you Person A's job? Why? Its her job, she's sitting in it and it's not even suitable for you as it's on different terms and conditions. I'm confused as to why they are doing that, they don't need to and if Person A gets made 'redundant' as a result of that she would be well-advised to consider claiming unfair dismissal. Or am I missing something?

In terms of what you should do, well you don't want her job anyway, so that's fine. Put yourself at risk of redundancy and see if they find something for you in the meantime. You can refuse a job that is not suitable without risking your redundancy pay. Suitable would be on no less favourable terms and conditions, so 5 days a week on same pay, and something suitable for your skills.