Redundancy / Resignation or Termination or Employment

[mainframedinosaur]

Hi Everyone

This is on behalf of a friend who cannot access the Web during the day at work and does not have a PC at home.

This person works as a front-line / first-level / help-desk person for a Software Company. When they started, the role was answering the phone, logging problems, fixing the simple ones themselves and passing others on and being the intermediary etc etc gradually they increased their knowledge and caould fix more and more themselves.

I am sure we all have experience of this, now the company has decided that the 3 people have to become even more skilled in the Companies products and do more of the fixing themselves, one person managed this transformation very easily and has been doing so for a while, one other just achieved the objective, but this 3rd person does not have the necessary skills (or will?) to make the transformation.

I have a lot of experience with employment law, but any extra pointers gratefully received.

My simplistic view is that the company are making 3 positions redundant and creating 3 new ones, therefore all 3 people should have received redundancy pay and the 3 new positions should have been on the open market.

This 3rd person believes they will be "asked to leave"

Another view is this is a gross breach of contract based on the initial employment contract, you cannot employ a Cobol programmer and then decide they have to be a C++ expert can you ....

[ChevyChase]

..

I'd have thought it was down to the company to provide sufficient training. Being crap at your job isn't grounds to sack someone anymore.

If the job description has changed sufficiently then that's another problem for the company....

[tim123]

Re: ..

....My simplistic view is that the company are making 3 positions redundant and creating 3 new ones, therefore all 3 people should have received redundancy pay and the 3 new positions should have been on the open market....

That's a little bit too simplistic.

OK, three posts are going and three new ones are being created, but the company should, in first instance, offer the job to the redundant workers.

So yes you are possible correct to suggest that anyone pushed out by this policy is entitled to redundancy, but the ones that stay are entitled to nothing.

tim

[MisterGoof]

Re: ..

I had an employment issue a couple of years ago. THe circumstances were different but the Citizens Advice Bureau gave good advice.

Also i got some free advice from a couple of solicitors from here. This replaces the old legal aid system. www.legalservices.gov.uk/

Good Luck

MG

edit. www.justask.org.uk/legalh...flet02.jsp

[mainframedinosaur]

Re: ..

Especially as the original Job is something this person was actually VERY good at and was enjoying and has been there 2 - 3 years.

If this company insists on having all their frontline help desk people fully skilled and technical experts then what happens if they leave ? they are less likely to find such replacements in that case, it is much easier to get another help desk trainee and build them up again.

It seems to me that the company could have one person focussing on all the "simple" help-desk activities and the other 2 focussing on the techie problem solving ....

[mainframedinosaur]

Re: ..

Thanks Goof

The CAB is a good source for a lot of things - www.adviceguide.org is their online presence and is pretty useful.

Thanks for the other links, I will pass them on.

[sb5spa]

redundanct etc

An employer is generally entitled to vary the tasks allocated to staff in accordance with changing business needs. No job is set in stone forever. An employee can be expected to carry out a range of tasks over time, so long as the employer acts reasonably. It could be that the employer is introducing changes because of a business reorganisation, or new conditions, and this could be seen in a Tribunal as a "substantial reason" to justify terminating the three help desk jobs and replacing them with new jobs, giving the employees new contracts to reflect the new work. In this case, strictly speaking, it is not a redundancy, but a termination with notice. The need for the jobs is still there, but the nature of the jobs is changing. The employer would be expected to consult with the employees, and then if terminating their contracts, offer the employees the new jobs on a preferential basis. If the employee refuses to take the job then his employment ends with the expiry of his notice period, but no redundancy pay. The employer should offer training, but if the employee is in a job beyond his capabilities, then the employee may, after looking at the situation in a responsible and sypathetic manner , ultimately terminate employment on the grounds of of capability (or lack of it!) as a reason for dismissal. The law on the matter is contained within Sec 98 0f the Employment Rights Act 1966.

[SupremeSpod]

Re: redundanct etc

Always read the contract, most of them say

...and any other duties as required.

[tim123]

Re: redundanct etc

You're mising the point Spod.

Whilst it is true to say that the employer can reassign you to some tulipty boring job that you'd rather not do and you'll have no comeback.

He can't assign you to a job that you don't have the skills/experience to do and then sack you for not having those skills.

tim

[MisterGoof]

Re: redundanct etc

Theres laws about this as well,
Unfair Involuntary Dismissal (or similar).
your employer puts the employee in a position where they cannot cope so the sack them
Unfair Voluntary Dismissal (or similar).
your employer puts the employee in a position where they fell they can only resign

A friend did the 2nd and got 40k after the court case, but was seriously stressful and unpleasant.