Need Impressions - Unfair Dismissal?

A friend of mine (a senior manager) returned to work after a week's holidays and was told that he was being made redundant and sent home immediately, wasn't allowed to go back to his desk, access his computer or anything (I think the term they used was "gardening leave"?).

During the meeting the owner said that HE would be taking on my friend's position in order to cut costs so the position still exists.

No-one else is being made redundant, the company is profitable (for a large part in thanks to my friend) and there doesn't appear to be an ulterior motive for trying to push him out (i.e. no problems at work).

Obviously he's contacted a solicitor and we're googling "unfair dismissals" and "employment rights" but the move seems either incredibly incompetent on the part of the employers or there's something we're missing.

Any thoughts?

Nody

See sticky, no legal advice can be offered.

That said the position don't exist any more most likely; rather there is a new position which combines the duties of your friend and the manager's duties and hence your friend is redundant. This is perfectly legal and I've gone through similar "reorganisations" and rehires multiple times.

Thanks, no legal advice required, he's already in contact with a solicitor.

But what you're saying is that a company can replace a person they're making redundant if it's the owner who replaces him? I didn't make that clear but the owner doesn't actually work at the company, hasn't for a long time. However, in order to cut costs it appears, he wants to return to work and take my friend's job ... without any notice period, when the company is making profits in the millions (my friend works in Accounting) and no-one else is affected.

All seems very shady but maybe that's how it's done now. We'll see what the solicitor says.

pearcider

Do let us know the outcome! Surely they can't get away with something like that...:(

wmpdd3

I'm sure you have already done this but google unfair selection for redundancy.

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

But what you're saying is that a company can replace a person they're making redundant if it's the owner who replaces him? I didn't make that clear but the owner doesn't actually work at the company, hasn't for a long time. However, in order to cut costs it appears, he wants to return to work and take my friend's job ... without any notice period, when the company is making profits in the millions (my friend works in Accounting) and no-one else is affected.

It doesn't matter whether the tasks are being taken over by the owner or another employee. They key thing is that tasks are being re-distributed: one person who until recently has had very very few tasks is being given some more, so your friend is redundant.

TBH, he may have a case for unfair dismissal, and a good solicitor may well find some claim to make that leads to him getting a settlement.

But there's something odd going on: he's a senior manager, and had no idea that this was coming? Maybe there's more to this story than your friend has told you. Maybe your friend was on the verge of discovering something that the owner didn't want him to. Maybe the owner has discovered something he doesn't like about your friends (there are ground that you cannot discriminate on - but that doesn't mean you cannot discriminate on other grounds!)

For some reason I was under the impression that you could only make a person redundant if their position was redundant and in this case it's clear that the position is still required but the owner (who hasn't worked at the company for years) has decided he wants to do it himself. But I see what you mean by "tasks are being re-distributed", I guess it could be looked at that way.

He's seeing the solicitor today.

Thanks all.

leeroybrown

As posters have pointed out above though what they'll likely end up doing is creating a new position of something like 'general manager' with your friends responsibilities and some other new ones. They'll then claim that they made the position of 'senior manager' redundant as it's duties were being subsumed into a new position.

Your friend does have some nice advantages here though. The fact that the owner has returned to work to take his duties is in his favour. The fact that the owner has claimed that he's taking that position is strongly in his favour if he does that. The fact that the company don't appear to have made any reasonable alternative offer is in his favour.

My suggestion would be to let your friends's solicitor deal with this and stop posting details of a potential legal action on a public forum.