Employee question inside, plese help

Colbaker · 5 Dec 2008 at 10:55

Hi all,

I was really just wondering if you have any rights as an employee if you have worked for a company for less that a year?
Basically one of our drivers has been told he will have to be dismissed because they have another driver who has worked for the company (another branch) for 8 years who will be taking his place, The only reason i can see why they are doing this is that they would have to give the 8 year driver a reason and some sort of redundancy pay but with my driver they are not obliged to do anything?

Is this correct, Can they actually do this? The driver has not done anything wrong and is a really hard worker who always helps out where he can.

pull2808 · 5 Dec 2008 at 10:56

Think they can make someone redundant but not sacking. if they sack him he will have a case for wrongful dismissal.

Wiggins · 5 Dec 2008 at 10:59

As above.

Unfair dismissal is for those over a year. IIRC wrongful dismissal stands whether you have been there a day or 8 years.

There will be a number of other breaches that the company has made but unsure.

Where are the OCUK Employment Lawyers???

Colbaker · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:03

Thanks for the reply's lads, Also if they were to make him redundant instead of dismissed then am i correct in saying that they cannot replace that job role for a certain amount of time?

Dugganator · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:08

I think they cant make someone redundant and then replace that job with the same job again or put someone else into that job doing the same job. If that makes sense. I could be wrong though

daz · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:10

They can get rid of someone that's been there <12 months for practically any reason apart from relating to sex, race, religion, disability.

Greebo · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:10

Colbaker said:
Thanks for the reply's lads, Also if they were to make him redundant instead of dismissed then am i correct in saying that they cannot replace that job role for a certain amount of time?

No. So long as they follow redundancy procedures and can justify their choice of who to make redundant, then they can replace him.

They would not be able to replace him with somebody new for a period of time. The amount of time varies. For example, due to a drop in work a company makes so many employees redundant but then a month later win a major contract and need more employees again. They would be legally entitled to fill those job roles again.

However, it would look "poor" on the company in such a short space of time, if they did not ask the previous employees to come back to work for them.

Colbaker · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:10

Duggan said:
I think they cant make someone redundant and then replace that job with the same job again or put someone else into that job doing the same job. If that makes sense. I could be wrong though

This was my understanding, I was sure they need to have some sort of consultation period before filling the job again.

Man, what is it with company's getting rid of people even though they have not recieved a drop in income yet (and may not), all it does is fuels the crisis we are in even more.

Greebo · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:12

Duggan said:
I think they cant make someone redundant and then replace that job with the same job again or put someone else into that job doing the same job. If that makes sense. I could be wrong though

Correct. Sort of. But in this case they have two drivers and clearly now only need one driver. There are making that one job redundant and even moving the guy from the other depot means there is still one less driver so they have not filled that role again.

Colbaker · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:15

Greebo said:
Correct. Sort of. But in this case they have two drivers and clearly now only need one driver. There are making that one job redundant and even moving the guy from the other depot means there is still one less driver so they have not filled that role again.

good point, I didn't consider this, as you say effectively they are still going to be less 1 driver. On another note they may offer him reduced hours which he will mean he will not be able to afford to keep the job, Maybe he could go for wrongful dismissal if this is the case?

Greebo · 5 Dec 2008 at 11:23

Colbaker said:
good point, I didn't consider this, as you say effectively they are still going to be less 1 driver. On another note they may offer him reduced hours which he will mean he will not be able to afford to keep the job, Maybe he could go for wrongful dismissal if this is the case?

Not if they go the redundancy route and do things properly. It is fair to offer the person reduced hours as an alternative to losing his job even if that means the employee can't afford to accept the offer. They are doing nothing wrong there.

Unfortunately for your mate, a lot of companies are making cutbacks and redundancies due to a drop in work. And although there can be a lot of factors in making a redundancy decision eg attendance, performance, skills, qualifications etc the biggest and most common is "last in, first out" unless it suits the company to, for whatever reasons, to keep a newer member of staff and get rid of an older one in which case the redundancy selection preocedure can be tailored to get the results you want.

Let's put it this way, you would be more unhappy if the guy you are working with was the one who had been there 8 years and they were making him redundant and keeping a driver they had for less than a year?