# unfair redundancy



## kkmaan (4 Feb 2010)

hello. 
i work in a factory in an industrial estate. there is another factory in the estate that make completley different products and the process is completely different. This other factory announced it is to close soon.
however, the people with more seniority than me in the other plant are trying to take my job with the union backing them.
usually the 2 factories are treated as 2 different entities, but in the past a handful of people have been transferred between the 2 sites, which makes things very messy now.
When the company announced the closure, they told us in our factory that our jobs were safe and that lay offs would only affect employees in the closing factory. unions have fighting tooth and nail for seniority and are against this announcement.
I am one of the employees who works in the factory that is not closing, but my job is being threatened because of seniority, so a more senior person in the closing is trying to take my job with union backing even though i am in the union.
this has been going on for 4 months now, but lately the company are backing down from their stance and seem to be allowing the unions have their way, which leaves me and others high and dry. dont forget the company originally told us on numerous occasions that our jobs were safe.
if the unions get their way, 60% of workers in the non-closing plant would be forced out. now the company are left with 60% untrained staff in vital areas such as maintenance and engineering. the company are using this arguement to keep me and others on, but the union seem to be making them reverse their stance.
where do you think i stand? in worst case scenario i am left go, would i have grounds for unfair dismissal at least?
thanks very much for help in advance, much appreciated


----------



## Mpsox (4 Feb 2010)

I'm assuming in this case that both factories are owned by the same company. 

In cases of selective redundancy there needs to be a clear and transparent process and criteria as to why people are selected. Last in/first out is an acceptable criteria so I would have thought in that case you would have little grounds. Normally, in a union negotiated redundancy deal, the union members would get an opportunity to vote on a deal. If the majority of staff accept such a deal and it is last in/first out, then again, unfortunately I'm not sure what case you would have. Your issue here strikes me as being with your union and not your emoloyer


----------



## Tintagel (4 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Normally, in a union negotiated redundancy deal, the union members would get an opportunity to vote on a deal.


 
If a person was on sick leave from the company should the company advise that person that there is a redundancy package available?


----------



## Mpsox (4 Feb 2010)

Tintagel said:


> If a person was on sick leave from the company should the company advise that person that there is a redundancy package available?


 
Absolutely, they are still an employee of the company


----------



## jhegarty (4 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Absolutely, they are still an employee of the company



But the company wouldn't be under any obligation to do so. 

They can just dismiss the person without paying if they want.


----------



## kkmaan (4 Feb 2010)

last in first out would be fair enough, but in this case if this was applied it would entail the employees from the closing factory taking the jobs of the less senior employees in the remaining factory. in this case, this would mean  the employees in the closing factory would take the jobs of 60% of the employees in the remaining factory.
this would mean the remaining factory would have 60% unexperience and untrained employees in vital areas such as maintenance and engineering, leaving the reamaining factory in a very compromising position and would be detrimental to the business.
what is your opinion in this case?


----------



## Mpsox (4 Feb 2010)

jhegarty said:


> But the company wouldn't be under any obligation to do so.
> 
> They can just dismiss the person without paying if they want.


 
If a person is on sick leave, they are still an employee of the company, you can't just get rid of them willy nilly, the same process needs to be applied. You'd be on very dangerous ground if you made someone redundant with no payment just because they were sick.


----------



## Mpsox (4 Feb 2010)

kkmaan said:


> last in first out would be fair enough, but in this case if this was applied it would entail the employees from the closing factory taking the jobs of the less senior employees in the remaining factory. in this case, this would mean the employees in the closing factory would take the jobs of 60% of the employees in the remaining factory.
> this would mean the remaining factory would have 60% unexperience and untrained employees in vital areas such as maintenance and engineering, leaving the reamaining factory in a very compromising position and would be detrimental to the business.
> what is your opinion in this case?


 
That's got nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the criteria for redundancy selection, that's  a business decision and if the employer weighs up the risks involved and decides that it is an acceptable risk for them to take, then they can take it.


----------



## jhegarty (4 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> If a person is on sick leave, they are still an employee of the company, you can't just get rid of them willy nilly, the same process needs to be applied. You'd be on very dangerous ground if you made someone redundant with no payment just because they were sick.




From :  Citizens Information

If illness or injury is at issue, it is often assumed that you cannot be dismissed fairly while on certified sick leave from your work. However, this is not true.


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...dundancy/dismissal/fair-grounds-for-dismissal


----------



## kkmaan (4 Feb 2010)

thanks. do you think that the company could have their way and choose suitability rather than seniority ( which is what the unions are pushing for )?
the company argue that seniority will impact the business severely, while the unions argue that seniority accross the two sites was recognised in the past, albeit in a handful of cases.
do unions usually win out in cases like this, or would the company have their way with suitability?


----------



## jhegarty (4 Feb 2010)

kkmaan said:


> thanks. do you think that the company could have their way and choose suitability rather than seniority ( which is what the unions are pushing for )?
> the company argue that seniority will impact the business severely, while the unions argue that seniority accross the two sites was recognised in the past, albeit in a handful of cases.
> do unions usually win out in cases like this, or would the company have their way with suitability?



They can chose any method that like once it's "fair".

Companies often choose seniority as it removes any chance of someone taking a successful claim against them.


----------

