# Former company now recruiting again after mandatory redundancies



## ericv (30 Dec 2009)

Hi,

I was made redundant in Sept 09 after working for 4 years for the same company. They went though all the stages of voluntary redundancy and then they didn't get enough people coming forward so they moved onto mandatory redundancy. 

I was chosen for mandatory redundancy at the end of June and I finished at the start of Sept. I disputed the redundancy all the way because I didn't think it was necessary because the company was still profitable and I refused to sign anything. I initiated legal proceedings at the start of Sept and now I am waiting for a date with the employment tribunal. They would not give me my full redundancy because I refused to sign the legal waiver so that is unresolved.

Then, at the start of December the company got a huge new service contract and now they are hiring like mad. So within a few months they are now going to hire more staff in total than they laid off and many of the jobs are in my specific area. 

Can anyone tell me how this is likely to affect my case? It should surely make it stronger but I just have to figure out how to approach this. I will be asking my solicitor of course but he is on christmas holidays and I am impatient. 

I didn't get a new job after being let off. I applied for about 45 roles but got no offers so I went back to uni and started an unfunded PhD instead. I have all of this documented of course.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Dec 2009)

A company is fully entitled to make people redundant if the job no longer exists, even if they are profitable. 

If your job no longer existed because they had lost business, they were entitled to make you redundant. I don't think that getting a new client afterwards, changes the fairness or otherwise of your redundancy. 

Have you spoken to them, either formally or informally? Could you apply to get your job  back? If I was in their shoes, I would probably offer you your old job back. If you decline it, it would weaken your case.

Brendan


----------



## Mpsox (30 Dec 2009)

The fact that your former employer was profitable at the time you were laid off is completly irrelevant to your case. In fact, one of the reasons some companies survive in the recesion is that they will take out costs early when profitable rather then waiting for the company to turn loss making before reacting. An employer cannot be expected to keep staff on in case it lands a big new contract at some stage in the future. They might, but they are not obliged to do so

If your former employer followed due process for redundancy then it is questionable what case you would have against them and if your only case is that they were profitable, then I doubt if you will get anywhere


----------



## ericv (30 Dec 2009)

Thanks for the replies. Luckily my case is not just based on the expansion. 

I am arguing against the selection criteria used and the fact that no business had been lost to justify the redundancy. I was just wondering how the expansion would fit into it.


----------



## Mpsox (30 Dec 2009)

Again, the fact that no business has been loss may not be relevant to your case, in particuler if your former employer can demonstrate increased productivity from remaining staff.


----------

