Hello, my name is***** am a qualified lawyer and it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today.
Have you asked your employer about the reason you were made redundant?
OK thank you, ***** ***** it with me. I am in court today so will prepare my advice during the day and get back to you at the earliest opportunity. There is no need to wait here as you will receive an email when I have responded. Thank you.
Please can you confirm whether you are searching for UK based law?
OK great. I will review the relevant information and laws and will get back to you in a short while. There is no need to wait here as you will receive an email when I have responded. Also, please do not responded to this message as it will just push your questions to the back of the queue and you may experience unnecessary delays. Thank you.
Hi just need some more details please - how long have you worked there for and are you an employee or self employed?
Thank you. It is certainly possible to make someone redundant whilst they are off sick but for this to happen there must be a genuine redundancy situation in the first place.
The term 'redundancy' is used to describe a situation in which an employer decides to reduce the number of its employees. There are various reasons as to why redundancies may be required, such as economic pressure, changes in the nature of products/services offered, internal reorganisation, workplace relocation, etc. The reason for the proposed redundancies will rarely be challenged and the employer will simply have to justify that the actual reason satisfied the statutory definition of a redundancy, which can be found in The Employment Rights Act 1996:
1. Business closure – where the whole of the employer’s business is closed
2. Workplace closure – closure or relocation of one or more sites
3. Reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind (this is where many employees get confused as they believe a job has to actually disappear for them to be made redundant).
The third reason above creates the most challenges. Examples of when there is a reduced requirement to do work of a particular kind are:
· The same amount of work remains but fewer employees are needed to do it. This includes consolidating some of its jobs (e.g. spreading out certain jobs amongst existing employees).
· There is less work of a particular kind and fewer employees are needed to do it (both the work and the headcount shrink)
· There is less work of a particular kind, but the same number of employees are required overall.
So as long as the employer can show that their situation fell within one of the accepted reasons for declaring a redundancy, the test will be satisfied and the focus then shifts on the remainder of the redundancy procedure. This would include what consultation took place, whether any suitable alternative employment was offered to those at risk and the general fairness of the redundancy procedure applied by the employer.
As to claiming for the accident you are only able to do so if you can show that someone has been negligent in the process. For example, the employer did not follow required health and safety procedures or they had done something which is clearly negligent and below the standard expected of them in the circumstances. For this I recommend you see a personal injury lawyer – many can offer you an initial free consultation to see if you have a good case.
This is your basic legal position. I have more detailed advice for you in terms of the steps you can take o challenge the redundancy if you believe it was unfair, which I wish to discuss so please take a second to leave a positive rating for the service so far (by selecting 3, 4 or 5 stars) and I can continue with that and answer any further questions you may have. Don’t worry, there is no extra cost and leaving a rating will not close the question and we can continue this discussion. Thank you
Hello, I see you have read my response to your query. Please let me know if this has answered your original question and if you need me to discuss the next steps in more detail? In the meantime please take a second to leave a positive rating by selecting 3, 4 or 5 starts from the top of the page. The question will not close and I can continue with my advice as discussed. Thank you
Hello, do you need any further assistance or are you happy with the above response? Look forward to hearing from you.
That is unfortunately not correct. Please refer back to point 3 on my main response which states that redundancy can occur if there's a reduced requirement for employees to do a specific job. The key is the word 'employees'. So the employer may need fewer employees to do the work but could instead take on contractors or agency workers, I.e. Non-employees. It is possible in redundancy for employees to be replaced with workers who are not employees. Hope this clarifies?
This is the common misinterpretation that people have about redundancy - being made redundant does not mean that your role no longer exists and that no one can do it. Please refer back to the legal definition of redundancy:
Reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind (this is where many employees get confused as they believe a job has to actually disappear for them to be made redundant). So it could be that the same amount of work remains but fewer employees are needed to do it. As mentioned, it is important to remember that redundancy only affects employees so an employer could decide to make an employee redundant, for example for cost reasons, and then replace them with a contractor or an agency worker - the job will continue to exist but because the definition of redundancy has been satisfied (i.e. a reduced requirement for employees to do the job), that can be a valid redundancy.
If your original question has been answered I would be grateful if you could please quickly rate my answer by selecting 3, 4 or 5 starts at the top of the page - it only takes a second to do and is an important part of our process. I can still answer follow up questions afterwards if needed. Thank you
I'm sorry if this is not necessarily the answer you were hoping for, however I do have a duty to be honest and explain the law as it actually stands. This does mean delivering bad news from time to time. I hope you understand and would be happy to provide any further clarification if needed. If you are still satisfied with the level of service you have received I would be grateful if you could please take a second to leave a positive rating by selecting 3, 4 or 5 starts at the top of the page. Thank you