Made redundant but position isnt

LegacyUser

This is a small country and my previous employers could make life quiet difficult for me in getting work elsewhere. I am being made redundant yet I have been unofficially told and have seen some documentation that on the Monday after I leave there is someone assigned to replace me full time. I also have been advised (correctly) by a collegue that if I complain I will never work in this industry again, work is difficult enough to find as it is and I need every reference possible. Its a large company I have never had an argument or disagreement with anyone at work, Id like to think that the revenur investigate redundancies and check if the positions are actually redundant but I know Im stuffed

Seifer

People are made redundant, not positions.
Just because you never had an argument with anyone doesn't mean that they found your work satisfactory.
Unless you feel you are in some way being unfairly dismissed then I would take it on the chin and move on.

dudara

According to NERA, the definition of redundancy is

Redundancy is where an employee’s position ceases to exist and the employee is not replaced.

Get in touch with NERA and seek advice.

PeakOutput

Seifer wrote: »

People are made redundant, not positions.

that is actually incorrect

however they can make your position redundant and then change a few things in the contract and call it something else and hey presto new position

copacetic

Seifer wrote: »

People are made redundant, not positions.
Just because you never had an argument with anyone doesn't mean that they found your work satisfactory.
Unless you feel you are in some way being unfairly dismissed then I would take it on the chin and move on.

Thats totally wrong, positions are made redundant, not people.

People are dismissed for cause and there are a lot of procedures to follow to do so.

OP, it's your call to make, you definitely have a case, but whether to follow it up or not is another thing.

Seifer

While I accept I may have been wrong on the legal definition of the term, in spoken language the phrase being made redundant is often a synonym for being fired.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/unemployment-and-redundancy/redundancy/overview-redundancy

cites amongst its reasons for redundancy:

"Your employer has decided to let your work be done in a different manner in future and you are not sufficiently qualified or trained to do the work in the different way
Your employer has decided that your work will in future be done by another person who can do other work as well and you are not sufficiently qualified or trained to do that other work."

And the fact that the OP is being replaced would indicate that they are not being made redundant by the NERA definition. If they are a large company as the OP says, then they're going to know how the law applies to what they are doing.

billybigunz

Sue them. They are tyring to fire you but are using redundancy law which won't go down well with a judge.

If you could use those comments about never working in the industry again and assuming that might be true then you might never need to work again.

eejoynt

this is a form RP 51 A

if you believe you have been unfairly selected for redundancy fill it in and make an application for it to be heard at the employment appeals tribunal

http://www.lrc.ie/documents/work/newforms/UnfairDismissals.pdf

you might use a completed copy of the form as leverage with the company before you leave to get them to part with more money

InReality

Large companies can be just as ignorant of the law as any other. As can any manager.
To me the OP's post sounds like he has a case against the company.
I wouldn't be reading into it that he has had poor performance or poor pref reviews.

heavyballs

InReality wrote: »

Large companies can be just as ignorant of the law as any other. As can any manager.
To me the OP's post sounds like he has a case against the company.
I wouldn't be reading into it that he has had poor performance or poor pref reviews.

i agree,and i can tell from experience that if this case went to the employee tribunals board there would defo be compo on the face of what i've read here

Shelflife

The thing to remember is that the work that the op was doing doesnt just disappear, someone has to do it.

eg: 2 people in a company one digs holes the other fills them in, company makes the filler in redundant and tells the digger to fill in holes as well.

so they have made the position of hole filler redundant, but have created a new position of hole digger and filler.

unless the company just got a new person to do exactly the same job as they were doing then the position is redundant.

they can then only claim for unfair selection.

afaik you can only claim EITHER redundancy or unfair dismissal not both.

Denimgirl

It is so wrong what they are doing to you call Emplyment Rights 1890 808090,they will help you.as far as I'm aware when some one is made redundant their post must be "dead" for 6 months before reopening it.
If they wanted to just get rid of you they should have followed procedures, believe me when companies want someone out they usually pick on anything lateness,nit pick at your work anything to go through the proper channels to get someone out.

Good Luck

DG

Mrs OBumble

Technically, you may be being made redundant when you should have been fired. You haven't said enough for us to be sure.

But cop on: which looks better on your employment history? No future employer (this industry or any other) will even blink if you say you left due to being redundant in the current climate. Almost all future employers (ANY industry) will look sideways at you if you say you were fired.

The other posters here are legally correct. However the anguish etc of legal proceedings are unlikely to be worth it, unless you want to get back at the company. If you just want to focus on your career, take that redundancy payment gracefully, and focus on finding your next role.

IMHO.