How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ben Jones Your Own Question
Ben Jones
Ben Jones, UK Lawyer
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 49862
Experience:  Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ben Jones is online now

there, I am a warehouse manager in a small business.

This answer was rated:

Hi there,
I am a warehouse manager in a small business. The business has not been making much profit over the past 12 months and the owner decided to sell the company to a business consortium.
The business consortium was now taken over and they have employed a HR consultant on a short term contract to streamline the company.
I was informed that the business consortium wanted to merge my job with the sales managers job and create a new "General Manager" role.
I had to go head to head in an interview with the sales manager and the unsuccessful candidate would be made redundant.
Unfortunately i was deemed to be unsuccessful in the interview and i have been told that i am redundant with statutory redundancy pay.
Is this legal or does it infringe any TUPE law? Is there anything i can legally do to appeal this or fight it through court?
Ben Jones : Hello, my name is ***** ***** it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today. How long have you worked there for? Please note I am in tribunal so may not be able to reply straight away but will do so this afternoon thanks

Hi there, i have worked for the company since it started in 2008 and i am 51 years old. thanks

Ben Jones :

Many thanks for your patience. It is not uncommon or redundancies to follow a TUPE transfer. To be fair the employer must show that there was a fair redundancy situation, that it was due to a technical, organisational or economical reason and that a fair selection process was conducted.

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.

A fair selection method could be a competitive interview process, which is what you had. As long as the same criteria are applied to all candidates an there is no clear favouritism then it will generally be fair.

So you need to consider f there are any of these grounds on which you can challenge the employer but from you have said a lot of it seems above board. You have nothing to lose by appealing with the employer first – all that can happen is they reject the appeal. After that you can still take your case to ACAS and use them to try and get some compensation – the worst is the employer says no. It is then you can make a claim in the tribunal if needed.

I hope this has answered your query. Please take a second to leave a positive rating, or if you need me to clarify anything before you go - please get back to me and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you


Thanks very much, so one last question. Do you think its worth my time taking it further, or do you think the company has acted fairly based on what i have told you? Thanks


If you can give your honest opinion as i dont want to waist my time taking this further if i dont really stand any chance.

Ben Jones :

Based on the information I have I am not in position to say whether you have a case worth taking further or not - for that you need a full case analysis, to be done in person, not something for this site. But you have nothing to lose by appealing first and then going to ACAS - both are free and the worst is the employer rejects your approach

Ben Jones and other Law Specialists are ready to help you