Employment law

[steadyeddie]

Anyone familiar with employment law etc. I could do with a bit of advise.
I've been told my office job within the company has ceased and will be amalgamated into other peoples duties. My two options are;
1) Take the offer of re-deployment back to the bench
2) Be made redundant .

I've been told that if I refuse the offer of the bench job, I will be made redundant but with no redundancy money as I refused re-deployment.
I would rather be made redundant but obviously with redundancy pay.

Where do I go from here?
All help appreciated.

Dave

 

[Jacob]

Union if you are a member. If not; now you know what they are for!
Citizens Advice Bureau is next stop. Be quick though, many are closing as grants are reduced and work load increased by withdrawal of legal aid. The gov doesn't want workers and other riff-raff to have too much power.

 

[Blister]

Dave

ANY Job at the moment with regular income is better than NO job

Think long and hard :!:

 

[paultnl]

It is the job that is made redundant not you, if the alternative work has the same terms and conditions you either take it or resign. As others have said best to get specific advice.

 

[Dibs-h]

Anyone familiar with employment law etc. I could do with a bit of advise.
I've been told my office job within the company has ceased and will be amalgamated into other peoples duties. My two options are;
1) Take the offer of re-deployment back to the bench
2) Be made redundant .

I've been told that if I refuse the offer of the bench job, I will be made redundant but with no redundancy money as I refused re-deployment.
I would rather be made redundant but obviously with redundancy pay.

Where do I go from here?
All help appreciated.

Dave

Dave - Sorry to hear that.

I think the following might be of some use,

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=537

http://www.usethekey.org.uk/staff/emplo ... ndancy-pay

Reading this bit

Unreasonable refusal may arise where the differences between the new and old jobs are negligible or where the employee assumes rather than investigates the changes that a new job might involve in, for example, travelling time or working conditions.

leaves you with the impression that if the "other" job is essentially the same - then a refusal is unreasonable, whereas if it isn't the same, then a refusal is not unreasonable. You can refuse the redeployment - but the grounds need to be reasonable - so whilst you haven't been told 8ollocks, it's not the entire picture by the sound of it.

In your case - what does "being on the bench" mean? I have an idea - but could obviously be different in your case\industry. Does it for example allow the subsequent termination of employment, because the nbr of days "off the bench" or chargeable to a client have fallen below a certain nbr?

Dibs.

p.s. the above is just my personal opinion - not advice, etc.

 

[tomatwark]

If you have worked for the company for less than 2 years you are not entitled to redundancy anyway.

If you decide to go back to the bench at least you will have an income, but if the firm decides to employ someone to do your current job in less than 6 months you have a case against them.

Look at it this way at least they must value you to offer you something else otherwise they would have let you go.

It does sound to me that your boss may not have explained things clearly or does not know the law themselves.

Tom

 

[Pvt_Ryan]

Can't comment on the Law aspect, but I would take the redeployment and start looking for a job elsewhere. Better to be looking for a job while you have one as you can take your time and choose the job, whereas if you have no job you might end up taking something you don't want for financial reasons.

Ryan

 

[Digit]

Unless the law has changed it is as Paul states, it is the job that is redundent, not the employee. Sounds dodgy to me, as for Jacob's advise, from experience I doubt that a Union can/will do a great deal for a single employee.

Roy.

 

[theartfulbodger]

Jobs are like girlfriends. It's easier to find one when you already have one.

I think you should take the job, but look for another one as well, just in case the company is seeking to make more cuts..

 

[studders]

Some parental advice that, sadly, I never always followed.
"Never give up your job, no matter how much you dislike doing it, until you have another one to go to; and even then think hard whether it is a wise move".

 

[Digit]

Sounds sensible to me, pity I never took such advice! :lol:

Roy.

 

[studders]

Sounds sensible to me, pity I never took such advice! :lol:

Roy.

Me neither, walked out more than once and then thought "Bugga, now what am I going to do?"

 

[woodshavings]

Have a look at this CAB site, it should help
www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money ... uction.htm

The site also gives information on other related issues, both employment related and benefits etc.
HTH
John

 

[steadyeddie]

Sorry for coming back a bit late - computer trouble!
Thanks to everyone for the replies and information etc. I shall take it all on board and see what happens. Thanks once again for all the help, comments and advice. Much appreciated.

Dave

 

[Sawyer]

Sorry to hear of your problems, Dave.

The general position is that if the 'new' job entails a change in existing terms and conditions, you can either accept or decline the change. If you accept, that becomes your new T&C; end of story.

If you decline, either the employer keeps you on current T&C, or will seek to make a 'unilateral change of contract.' Legally this cannot be enforced, but employers often try it on.

If this happens they might say 'these are your new T&C' fait accompli, and see if they can get away with it. Accepting without protest could be deemed as acceptance (get legal advice).

If you continue to refuse they can either (i) make you redundant; or (ii) dismiss you and re-employ you on the new T&C. If (ii) you may have a remedy against the employer for unfair dismissal.

These are general remarks only. Do not take this as any comment or advice on your personal situation.
The most important thing though is, get proper from union, CAB or a solicitor.

Jacob is correct about unions. Contrary to some suggestions, they can and do help individual workers too.

 

[bugbear]

Jacob is correct about unions. Contrary to some suggestions, they can and do help individual workers too.

When you think about it, a union that allowed members to be picked off "one at a time" (divide and conquer) wouldn't really deserve the label "union".

BugBear

 

[Dibs-h]

A very close friend is going thru a similar headache.

CAB - I suspect service varies depending on where you are and who you get. For my friend as much use as a chocolate teapot from the employment aspect. Benefits some advice.

Union - completely useless for him, but suspect some unions have teeth and are willing to bite and some are just plain toothless.

Legal advice - probably the best. Might be worth looking around as some cities have a Law Centre type of place, staffed by volunteer solicitors\barristers, so no cost for an hour or so of advice.

HIH

Dibs

 

[marcros]

It might be worth checking your house insurance policy- they do sometimes cover legal expenses, although whether you could claim for advice about what to do is another thing. They may just cover the expense of dealing with something that has already happened.