Redundancy or Unfair Dismissal?

Calil11

I decided to forget about it and move on

Zamboni

The company are making 2 of 3 sales jobs redundant.
You made their selection easy because you said you had challanged them on various issues.
Don't compare yourself to this other girl. Her own job was reduced. She did not get your job.
Your individual circumstances are irrelevant to a company that needs to make redundancies.

It sounds harsh and I am sorry you lost your job but I don't see an unfair dismissal case here.

Nody

Stupid browser is stupid.

Nody

There is no redundancy required by law if you have not been employed for two years.

Secondly when it comes to unfair dismissal the burden of proof lies on you; the fact that they have moved from three people to one on part time don't make it unfair that you where let go. The company simply has to show in court why they found that person to be more suitable and point to the redundancies made (inc. cost per person) to show why it was done. Hence I think you will find it a very difficult case to win but have a word with a solicitor about it as no legal advice will be given on this board.

qwytre

You should ask for the selection criteria they used to pick your role for redundancy. From a process point of view they should at least try to find another role for you in the company and there should be a follow up meeting in the next few days.

As you are there less than 2 years you wont get any redundancy payment.

bbam

Sounds like procedure was followed as you were paid for your notice period, as stated you need to be there two years to get a statutary redundandancy payment..
Another thing and a point I've made to a friend recently... Particularly in small businesses where the boss is the owner and you pi** them off, they will have the last say..

Wishbone Ash

Nody wrote: »

when it comes to unfair dismissal the burden of proof lies on you

It's the other way around - the onus is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was fair.

Mrs OBumble

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's the other way around - the onus is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was fair.

Sure - if the OP was dismissed. But they weren't, they have paperwork saying that they were made redundant.

Calil11

Just to clarify after talking to a solicitor it is always up to the employer to prove the dismissal/redundancy was fair.

Wishbone Ash

JustMary wrote: »

Sure - if the OP was dismissed. But they weren't, they have paperwork saying that they were made redundant.

I realise that. I was replying to Nody's post - not answering the OP.

BTW, the position is made redundant - not the employee (common mistake!)