A recent post of mine on redundancy about making someone go on a three day week and whether they were entitled to redundancy -which I had thought they were -elicited a firm denial from another poster that this was possible. Indeed, looking through previous posts I see a firm belief that an employee can be indefinitely put one on a three day week and was not entitled to redundancy.
i've been following this up with talks to citizens advice, trade unions and a legal firm specialising in employment law. This is a synopisis of what I've been told
"notwithstanding the law regarding being put on short-time (under half your normal working week) which does give employees,following certain procedures, the right to claim redundancy, if an employee has a contract of employment which states the number of working hours and the possibility of a three day week is not mentioned in that contract, then if that employee is put on a three day working week then there may be a case for asking for redundancy.
The law that automatically allows an employee put on less than half of a working week to claim redundancy does not negate the rights of an employee put on a three/for day week.
However, whilst the contract of employment does give the employee certain rights if put on a three day week, it is generally recognised that if there is an economic neccessity to put that employee on a three day week -and the employer can prove that neccessity, then it would be difficult for that employee to insist on redundancy.
It must be emphasised that the employer must show that putting staff on a three day week is neccessary for the survival of the company ,and is not done because that employer can make more profits by suddenly deciding to put staff on a three day week; or because there is , say, a normal seasonal downturn in business.
Because of the present downturn some employers may be tempted to put staff on a three day week for a short while claiming that this is necessary for survival. If it can be shown that this is not the case and the employee has the neccessary contract then there may be a case for unfair dismissal/redundancy. "
It's a load of guarded waffle , which I've shortened, but it may suggest that not every employee who is put on a three day week has to accept it.
A look at their employment contract and a look at the state of company situation/accounts may be useful for employees who have worked for many years (and are thus entitled to a large redundancy) -and are suddenly told "sorry you're on a three day week and there's nothing you can do ".
Sorry for bad english above,but I suppose I have a bee in my bonnet about some employers using the three-day week as an easy way out of avoiding redundancy.
i've been following this up with talks to citizens advice, trade unions and a legal firm specialising in employment law. This is a synopisis of what I've been told
"notwithstanding the law regarding being put on short-time (under half your normal working week) which does give employees,following certain procedures, the right to claim redundancy, if an employee has a contract of employment which states the number of working hours and the possibility of a three day week is not mentioned in that contract, then if that employee is put on a three day working week then there may be a case for asking for redundancy.
The law that automatically allows an employee put on less than half of a working week to claim redundancy does not negate the rights of an employee put on a three/for day week.
However, whilst the contract of employment does give the employee certain rights if put on a three day week, it is generally recognised that if there is an economic neccessity to put that employee on a three day week -and the employer can prove that neccessity, then it would be difficult for that employee to insist on redundancy.
It must be emphasised that the employer must show that putting staff on a three day week is neccessary for the survival of the company ,and is not done because that employer can make more profits by suddenly deciding to put staff on a three day week; or because there is , say, a normal seasonal downturn in business.
Because of the present downturn some employers may be tempted to put staff on a three day week for a short while claiming that this is necessary for survival. If it can be shown that this is not the case and the employee has the neccessary contract then there may be a case for unfair dismissal/redundancy. "
It's a load of guarded waffle , which I've shortened, but it may suggest that not every employee who is put on a three day week has to accept it.
A look at their employment contract and a look at the state of company situation/accounts may be useful for employees who have worked for many years (and are thus entitled to a large redundancy) -and are suddenly told "sorry you're on a three day week and there's nothing you can do ".
Sorry for bad english above,but I suppose I have a bee in my bonnet about some employers using the three-day week as an easy way out of avoiding redundancy.