Is Redundancy Legal Options

[Jayjay]

WBC is 'making the majority of its workforce aged 65 or over redundant'. 'This will allow staff currently at risk of redundancy .... to be redeployed to these roles'.

I was under the impression that a post has to be invalid to make anyone redundant and said post cannot be refilled until a prescribed period of time has passed. Have the rules changed?

[Turin Machine]

I believe, but I may be wrong the post has to be empty for two years, simply call the job something else and change the duties slightly and it's a goer

[user23]

Where did you read this?

[NWNREADER]

If you read the story entirely, not just the word 'redundant', it seems the staff are actually being asked to retire so that younger staff who will otherwise be redundant can be redeployed.
If the NWN article is misleading on the use of a single word the rest of the matter is put to rest.

My knowledge of employment law is not the best, but I certainly believe making someone 'redundant' when their job really continues to be available can lead to a tribunal hearing for unfair dismissal.

[NWNREADER]

Where did you read this?

P5 NWN 17-MAR-11

[Andy Capp]

I believe, but I may be wrong the post has to be empty for two years, simply call the job something else and change the duties slightly and it's a goer

And if the 'new' people are paid less.

[Jayjay]

If you read the story entirely, not just the word 'redundant', it seems the staff are actually being asked to retire so that younger staff who will otherwise be redundant can be redeployed.
If the NWN article is misleading on the use of a single word the rest of the matter is put to rest.

My knowledge of employment law is not the best, but I certainly believe making someone 'redundant' when their job really continues to be available can lead to a tribunal hearing for unfair dismissal.

I did read the story entirely, quote from David Rendall '..... it is cheaper for the tax payer to make such redundancies from that age group'.

[Richard Garvie]

They have to do it before April, because it will be illegal in October and they must provide a minimum of six months notice as I understand it. 14 of those let go were notified by letter!!! You would have thought somebody would have said something first.

[user23]

And if the 'new' people are paid less.

I presume you're in favour of this?

[Bloggo]

An employer can legally ask an employee to retire at the age of 65 without any additional payment at this time however I believe that this position will change in the future when an employee can expect to work past the age of 65.

This will of course be different if there is a legal contract in place defining employment criteria.

It is the position /job that is made redundant, not the employee therefore no one can be further employed for that position as in law it no longer exists.
The reality is that there are loads of ways to overcome this such as restructuring, a new position title and job description or reporting structure.
At this time it is perfectly legal to re-evaluate the salary for this "new" position when offered.

[NWNREADER]

I did read the story entirely, quote from David Rendall '..... it is cheaper for the tax payer to make such redundancies from that age group'.

And, as I said, the misuse of the 'redundancy' status is an error by David and the NWN. The staff and their posts are not redundant, they are being asked to retire and thus free the post up for someone to be redeployed to.......

[Andy Capp]

I presume you're in favour of this?

In my time, I have been a victim of such practice. It certainly wasn't an endorsement.

[Simon Kirby]

UK employment law does not give the employee a great deal of protection. An employee's best option for a fair deal is to join a union. Unison are good.

[Bloggo]

UK employment law does not give the employee a great deal of protection. An employee's best option for a fair deal is to join a union. Unison are good.

Which most WBC workers are members of so their rights should be well protected.

[Richard Garvie]

Were these people MADE to retire?

[user23]

Isn't this just recycling natural wastage?

[Bloggo]

Were these people MADE to retire?

Because the incompetent Labour government left the country in such a financial mess that all local authorities have no choice but to cut back.

[Andy Capp]

Because the incompetent Labour government left the country in such a financial mess that all local authorities have no choice but to cut back.

Has there ever been a competent government?

[dannyboy]

Were these people MADE to retire?

No.

[Jayjay]

Because the incompetent Labour government left the country in such a financial mess that all local authorities have no choice but to cut back.

Irrespective of whose fault it is, it does not give the council carte blanch to act outside the law. If the council make people redundant as opposed to posts (which NWNreader throws doubt on), they are acting illegally.