DELETED_96987

[Jokester]

How long has he been there?

 

[teenwolf]

they are not allowed to advertise the same job.
is he part of a union ?
was he permanent ?

 

[Samueltastic]

they are not allowed to advertise the same job.
is he part of a union ?
was he permanent ?

This. if he is MADE redundant and not voluntary they have to wait 6 months before hiring.

 

[*Rich*]

Whatever the rules, it sounds very unfair to get rid of him then look for a replacement.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

AFAIK they cannot advertise the same job for x period no matter how long the contract is but IANAL

 

[J.B]

Im no expert but doesnt that fact they are only looking for a 2 month contractor complicate things?

 

[Jokester]

I'm not sure, but I don't think they can replace staff with contractors either.

 

[Freakbro]

How long has he been there?

I'm not sure redundancy comes under the same category of no unfair dismissal regulation for working under 2 years, if that is what you are inferring.


As he has statutory rights to a notice period of redundancy even if under 2 years.

Part 4: Notice periods

You must be given a notice period before your employment ends.

The statutory redundancy notice periods are:

at least 1 week’s notice if employed between 1 month and 2 years

 

[mattyg]

Sorry your mate is out of luck.

His job is no longer needed and they are bringing in a contractor NOT another employee

He has also only been there for 8 months which means he cant even go for unfair dismissal

But his employers MUST still follow proper procedure

 

[Jokester]

I'm not sure redundancy comes under the same category of no unfair dismall regulation for working under 2 years, if that is what you are inferring.


As he has statutory rights to a notice period of redundancy even if under 2 years.

But does he also have a right to statutory redundancy pay under 1 year?

 

[Freakbro]

But does he also have a right to statutory redundancy pay under 1 year?

No, min 2 years before redundancy payment is due. Just I don't think they can use 'redundancy' as an excuse for getting rid of him, even if under 2 years employment.

They would have been better just to have fired him

 

[teenwolf]

made redundant.
advertise same job.

they wanted him out.
goto CAB and get some advice.

 

[Jokester]

No, min 2 years before redundancy payment is due

In fact it doesn't really matter if it was 1 or 2 years, I was thinking if they had made him redundant early to avoid him going over that threshold, even though his job still existed.

 

[hondo]

He has also only been there for 8 months which means he cant even go for unfair dismissal

But his employers MUST still follow proper procedure

+1

 

[Freakbro]

Without knowing all the facts Milky, it does 'sound' incorrect and would at least be worth pursuing with CAB or ACAS

 

[Freakbro]

In fact it doesn't really matter if it was 1 or 2 years, I was thinking if they had made him redundant early to avoid him going over that threshold, even though his job still existed.

Yea, but redundancy is a specific thing, ie: basically the job no longer exists. So to advertise the same job or get a contractor in to do the same job would seem to make the redundancy invalid.

If he was under 2 years they should have just fired him