Part-time workers must go first?

M

marsbars

Registered User
Messages
17
I know someone in a part-time position in a factory - told he was a vital member of the workforce and was 3 months from a full-time position. However the company is now cutting back and is getting rid of all part-timers. He has been told he has to go (legally there is no choice), even though there are other employees far less productive, with some on final warnings - although they are full-time.

Are the company paying him lip service or do they have no option? Could they make him full-time and then get rid of who should be got rid of on merit? Is this illegal or unethical?

Thanks for any advice.
 
You say part-time. Do you mean temporary by any chance?

If a company decides to lay off temporary workers, they would be entitled to set that as a criterion.

Assuming you do mean part-time, there is no clear answer. The employer must publish their criteria for selecting people for redundancy. If they have chosen to operate with only full-time staff for good operational reasons, that would probably be fair selection for redundancy. It is easier to run a company with 20 full-time employees than 40 part-time employees.

The company should consult with employees and the employees could make a case why they should not be made redundant. It would certainly be acceptable for an employer to make performance a criterion for selection for redundancy. In my view, that would be a more sensible criterion than whether or not their work is full time or part time.

Brendan
 
Brendan,

Thanks for that. I'm pretty sure he is part-time - would that make a difference?

So there is no legal obligation to leave part-time staff go first?

Performance can be an acceptable criteria - even allowing for legalities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top