Redundancy if role still is there?

Hi,

Our company is offering voluntary redundancy to two of us (only five in the company which includes 2 directors). If neither of us accept one of us will be made redundant.

I am the last in and it has been implied that for that reason I will be the one made go if the other girl does not accept. Totally unfair to put us in such a position and is causing a lot of stess.

I am the only one with work at the moment and my desk is the one bringing the money in to cover a large portion of our outgoings. I feel it would be unfair to let me go as my role itself is not going to go, the other girl would just take it over.... is this allowed?

I have built up three years of relationships with clients and am on a lower salary and think that I should be kept on for these reasons as the other girl would have to take over my desk, start a fresh with a lot of clients (some overlaps already exist) and she'd be getting more money to do what I was doing in the first place.

Thats the way it usually goes, last in = first out. Unfortunately, it is seen as the fairest way, other systems are open to opinions and personnel differences.

Same happened in my company and we are left with the worst people unfortunately. Consultation with a solicitor recommended this system as the fairest (or least likely to get you in trouble).
Sorry for your trouble,

last in = first out.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily - the skills base can also be assessed - this is potentially the wisest way of addressing redundencies..

pinkyBear said:

Not necessarily - the skills base can also be assessed - this is potentially the wisest way of addressing redundencies..

Click to expand...

i agree, that should be used, but, its generally not. Whoever asseses your skills is open to favouring one person over another for a variety of reasons, and therefore making assumptions on skill sets.

I always understood that redundancy meant that the job was redundant not the person. If the exact job exists after someone is made redundant and someone else takes up the exact same job then I can't see how this is a legitimate case of redundancy.

I don't know about the legality of letting you go in order to move someone else into your job. You'll need advise about that.
However if you're the one making the money, you should discuss that with the directors. Point out your success at maintaining the cashflow, your ability to bring in work, etc. etc. If they're at all switched-on, they'll keep the one with the proven money-making skills.

If the company does not bring in anyone else -that is, will actually reduce the number of employees for a certain period - and can show that it is financially necessary to reduce the staff ,then letting go of the last person to join the company will not be considered as unfair dismissal. (I am assuming the the company will claim that the two roles will be merged into one -a very common procedure in these difficult times, and one that the authorities recognise may be necessary).

From what the OP says, it would suit the company better if the OP remained, but the more expensive employee - who has been there longer - may then have better rgounds for unfair dismissal.

It may not be "fair" but nor are the redundancy rules, and it appears that the company is adopting the less bad option from a legal point of view ,even though commercially it would make more sense to retain the OP