Over 104 weeks Service but not entitled to Redundancy

[Red_rebel]

Hello,

I am creating this thread on behalf of a good friend.Here are his details:

1.He has worked in a car dealership for 26 months continuously.
2.He is due to be let go by his employer in the next week,as the company have lost the dealership of a particular car type that he was selling.

3. As far as I am aware, he should be due a redundancy payment as he is over 18 ( age = 36) and has exceeded 104 weeks service.There was no break in this service.
However, the company is telling him that he is not entitled to redundancy because his service was divided in into 3 'contract' periods ( Jan 2007-June 2007, July 2007-November 2008, December 2008-Feb 2009).I should again point out that where one contract finished, the subsequent contract periods followed immediately-so there was no break in service.

As stated above, I think he should be entitled to redundancy.
Can anyone offer any help on this?
It would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You

 

[Eblanoid]

[broken link removed]

Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003

Basically, you have to be treated exactly the same as the permanent employees.

 

[Smashbox]

He still served over the two years, I would tell your friend to go further with this, as he would be entitled to redundancy.

 

[Red_rebel]

Thanks to all for your response.