Redundancy And Then Having To Re-Apply For Your Job?

[samuel23]

Hi all
OH has worked for a firm for 10 years and recently the had a firm of 'consultants' in to streamline the operation.
This resulted in about half of the workforce being told they were going to be made redundant. However there is a twist - the people concerned have been told they must re-apply for their jobs.
Now, I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that a person can't be made redundant, it is the position that has gone. However the same positions are still available to those applying, just with different hours. Surely this should be a change of contract issue not redundancy. Can anyone she some light on the legality of this?
TIA
Samuel

[Prudie]

I'd suggest you have a look at people such as ACAS for guidance. I'd be surprised if this company didn't know the rules and if they make people redundant they need to wait a minimum of 3 months before re-advertising the posts to avoid accusations of unfair dismissal. It may be they are trying to get round this by using what I assume is a major change in contracted hours to say they are different posts.

[samuel23]

Thanks for your answer Prudie.
I'm going to check the ACAS site - have tried the Directgov site but it doesn't cover this :-(

[Hypognosis]

@Samuel

If no redundancy pay arrangements have been made then it is not redundancy, in the proper sense of the word.

Which country are we talking about, by the way? This is a UK-based website, in which case, try:-
https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/overview

Fire and rehire is something I associate with the USA and I think it may be illegal here but wait for the law experts to post about that.

[samuel23]

Hi Hypognosis.
Thank you for your reply and the link, which I will try later today.
Yes, this is the UK we are talking about. The staff have been given notices telling them how much their redundancy pay will be, but the jobs they are having to reapply for are the same jobs, with the same duties, the only difference is that some of the contracted hours have changed.

[samuel23]

Hi Methyl
Thank you for replying.
This company has 220+ staff , of which 80 have been given notices (company has 2 main components, the other part of the company is involved in a different line of work and is not affected).
The thing I am finding difficult to comprehend is the need for those affected to reapply for a job that they are already doing.
As an example, the company has a laundry division that is still going to operate, but the staff there have been told they are having their hours changed. It's the same job, same duties, just an earlier start. So the actual job isn't going to change at all.

[Hypognosis]

@Samuel

Well, if redundancy payouts are the table then this company is taking serious costs on the chin. Beware, however, that the new contract will reset everybody's "years of continuous service" to zero, which will reduce the bill for the next redundancy exercise they want to run (just hypothetical, for now).

Change of working hours might not seem serious and many employees will not complain much but you haven't told us what their plans are regarding salaries. More hours, same pay is a pay cut, in anyone's language.

[VHG]

My wife worked recently for a local charity.

A number of staff were made redundant and then had to reapply for "similar" jobs if they wanted to (on less hours, less pay and a different worded contract).

Some staff did not bother to re-apply for their old jobs.

My wife was so sick of the whole thing she resigned (she was not one of those being made redundant).

[fiction-factory]

Is the total number of positions and the hours available still exactly the same? If so, based on what you say, I can't see how there is a redundancy situation. But if there are fewer hours available then I can see why they may be doing it this way.