please help as i cannot afford legal advice

[the 4js]

on 6th may i was advised my role could be at risks due to redundancy and that the business propossed to extend the availability of my working hours. I was informed that I had passed the selection matrix and that i was no longer at risk of redundancy on 13th may. My letter also reminded me of the change to my contract and that i could have a 1-1 consultation meeting.
i returned the letter stating I would like a meeting concerning the change of contract on 15th may.
i finally had a meeting on 27th may where i stated that i was not happy with the change in availability of hours which had already appeared in my schedule without even signing a contract or had any consoltation.

the company did not offer voluntary redundancy which I would have taken due to the change in hours and the expectation to work them to cover other T/Leaders doing shifts til 11pm should the need arise.

where do I stand - they are comming back to me on 2nd June and the 'consoltation period finishes on the 5th june

[Kati]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

Hi [MENTION=67016]the 4js[/MENTION] ... I've moved your thread to the employment section of the forum where you'll get the best advice
maybe [MENTION=19071]teaboy2[/MENTION] has some ideas xx

[teaboy2]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

Are you saying that they unilaterally changed your contracted hours and tried to force you to work those new hours once you passed the selection matrix and your role was therefore safe? Without asking you to sign or agree to notice of variation of terms (basically written notice informing you of the proposed changes to term(s) of your employment contract and asking you sign if you consent to the changes)?

And yes they should have invited people to take voluntary redundancy right from the word go!

Just so you are aware, you can formally give them notice that you wish to take voluntary redundancy!

[the 4js]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

hi tboy, yes we were told of the new hours at the same time of the redundancies so the expectation was that if you kept your job you would be working these hours. they stated they would not take voluntary redundancy. I have my meeting outcome tomorrow. i cannot afford to not have a job. do I have to accept this like it or lump it????

[stevemLS]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

What are your current contracted hours and what are the proposed hours?

What exactly does your contract say about hours?

An employer is not obliged to offer voluntary redundancy terms, particularly where the need for the role has not diminished. It then becomes a question of whether the change in hours amounts to a variation material enough to say that the new working pattern does not constittute a suitable alternative.

[teaboy2]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

[MENTION=48758]stevemLS[/MENTION] - It appears his role was up for redundancy and he was one of many fulfilling the same role, but he passed the matrix selection so wasn't picked for redundancy whilst others were. And now they are trying to force different hours on to him. So I'd say that amounted to a variation of his terms of contract.
[MENTION=67016]the 4js[/MENTION] - On top of Stevemls questions - How many years have you been employed by this company?

[stevemLS]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

[MENTION=19071]teaboy2[/MENTION] - I don't disagree, but the question of the extent of variation would be relevant to whether it was suitable. I also don't know of any requirement to seek volunteers for redundancy before dealing with compulsory redundancies - happy to be corrected.

(What I am concerned about is the possibility of losing any entitlement to payment if OP is regarded as having rejected a suitable alternative).

[teaboy2]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

@teaboy2 - I don't disagree, but the question of the extent of variation would be relevant to whether it was suitable. I also don't know of any requirement to seek volunteers for redundancy before dealing with compulsory redundancies - happy to be corrected.

(What I am concerned about is the possibility of losing any entitlement to payment if OP is regarded as having rejected a suitable alternative).

Wasn't saying you were wrong [MENTION=48758]stevemLS[/MENTION] - Just that they haven't offered an alternative position as the OP is not at risk of redundancy anymore, as they were not selected for redundancy. But the OP is instead being forced to change hours, even though they have not been selected for redundancy.

Offering Voluntary redundancy is more good practice than anything else, and advised as something to be offered by the government website.

Eitherway i can not see how, given the OP has been told he/shes not going to be selected for redundancy, how the change in hours can be an offer of alternative similar role, and can therefore only be a variation of the OP's contracted hours as the OPs role is not being made redundant. I'll guess we will find out more tomorrow after the OP's had the meeting with them. I suppose the correct way for them the employer to go about this would be to make the OPs role redundant and offer them a similar role with same duties but with the new contracted hours - But they not done that as they have told the OP he/she isn't being made redundant!

[stevemLS]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

[MENTION=19071]teaboy2[/MENTION] Yes, the way I read it though is that they advised the OP that they were no longer at risk on condition that the new hours profile was accepted, that seems to have been what they were told on 13th May.

I agree, btw, that offering voluntary redundancy is best practice and certainly the more humane way of going about things, but we all know how employers can behave when choose to!

[teaboy2]

Re: please help as i cannot afford legal advice

@stevemLS - Yes i read it like that too originally, but then they (OP) were told they were not at risk of redundancy as they had passed the selection matrix, but the new hours were applied to their rota even though they had not agreed the new hours - So their role has not been made redundant but the hours associated with the role are being changed, which to me is a variation of terms, since the role is not being made redundant and the OP isn't being offered a new role with same or similar duties - Which i assume is not what has been offer, as @the 4js would need to have accepted the offer of the new role and the old role would have been made redundant.

I think @the 4js needs to confirm whether they were offered a new role as an alternative to redundancy or not, and whether they had accepted the new role - Which would have led to their name being removed from the selection matrix.

And yes i agree with regards to knowing about how employers can behave when they choose too lol