# Can my work do this? Forced to reapply for job, but new role is impossible.



## mrsfran (Jan 11, 2012)

I, along with my entire team, are at risk of redundancy. Next month we all have to reapply for new roles and if we don't get it then we'll be made redudant. There are fewer roles than there are people.

I currently work 9 - 5 Mon - Wed. The new roles are full time and on a shift pattern, including 12-hour shifts and night shifts on a 7-day fortnight rotation. There is absolutely no way I can do that because I would not be able to get childcare - these new roles are effectively impossible for me to do.

I have been told that I can apply and will be given equal consideration to everyone else and that requests for part-time work will be considered on an individual basis. I know that I am good at my job and if I can, I'd really like to keep doing it.

What I'm wondering is, if I don't get the role, could this be a case of constructive dismissal? Or does that not apply in redundancy situations?

Are there any other legs I can stand on?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 11, 2012)

mrsfran said:


> <snip>What I'm wondering is, if I don't get the role, could this be a case of constructive dismissal?<snip>


Possibly, but get expert advice.



mrsfran said:


> <snip>Are there any other legs I can stand on?


Sex discrimination - women are more likely to have childcare to fit around, therefore are indirectly discriminated against by some work patterns. This one is valid even if the employer is willing to let anyone work those shifts.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 11, 2012)

Bleurgh.

I'd say definitely get more qualified advice.

I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but I'm far from convinced that shift work over a 24/7 pattern constitutes a "reasonable alternative" in law to a 9-5 job on set days.

I'm not sure about the sex discrimination angle - I'm not quite up to date with such things.  I believe that it is now illegal to discriminate against part time workers, (on grounds of indirect sex discrimination since women make up a high proportion of part time workers)

And I'd suggest that the constructive dismissal angle should be handled with extreme care - I think I'm right in saying that you have to follow procedures or it can be dismissed straight off - and that you have to show that you have at least tried to resolve the matter through the organisation's grievance procedure before walking out.

Is there any chance of enhanced redundancy pay if you volunteer for redundancy?  (You say you want to stay there, but they sound like a bunch of shits.  And is this likely to be the first of a few rounds of redundancies?  You know your circumstances - and the chances of getting other work - better than I do.)

Are you in a union?  If so, (probably stating the bleeding obvious) talk to them.

Are there other part time staff in a similar position to you?  You may do better standing together rather than (as I'm sure the employers would like) fighting among yourselves.

I'm not sure whether a situation where you have to re-apply for jobs and it's totally different would legally constitute a 'change to contract'

I'd suggest a read of this (from CAB) on the subject of redundancy (if that's what is happening) and / or this (also CAB) re change of contracts.

 As well as CAB, ACAS offer telephone advice to individuals - they have a page on redundancy here, with a link to the details of their advice line, which should also be able to offer advice on the possible sex discrimination angle.

Hope all goes well.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 12, 2012)

If you're not in a union, and CAB are often very busy, I would suggest having a look at the DirectGov info. Best advice - ring ACAS......


----------



## gaijingirl (Jan 12, 2012)

shit mrsfran... what a crappy situation.  I'm afraid I have no advice, just wanted to sympathise really.  I really really hope it works out ok for you one way or another!


----------



## innit (Jan 12, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> If you're not in a union, and CAB are often very busy, I would suggest having a look at the DirectGov info. Best advice - ring ACAS......


Another vote for wonderful ACAS - the helpline should be able to give you a steer as to whether you have a case for constructive dismissal.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 13, 2012)

I can only echo what others have said; unions, CAB, ACAS etc.

So sorry to hear that, that's one hell of a shitty alternative.


----------



## Ceej (Jan 13, 2012)

There's some legislation relating to being the parent of a young child - you have the right to request flexible working - one of the criteria is to raise a child, who presumably can't be expected to stay somewhere else, twelve hours a day while you're at work. here's the link:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/E...WorkingPatterns/right_to_flexible_working.dsb

Having a quick look, I think you'd meet the criteria. There's also some info about building a case for flexible working. And definitely sex discrimination as Greebo said - a perfect instance of women being disadvantaged by these new working patterns as they are more often responsible for childcare (no offence to any childcaring dads).

Good luck.


----------



## Ms T (Jan 14, 2012)

Ceej said:


> There's some legislation relating to being the parent of a young child - you have the right to request flexible working - one of the criteria is to raise a child, who presumably can't be expected to stay somewhere else, twelve hours a day while you're at work. here's the link:
> 
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/E...WorkingPatterns/right_to_flexible_working.dsb
> 
> ...


You have the right to ask, but the employer also has the right to turn you down for "business reasons" and you can't take out a grievance where I work. It's a pretty toothless law.

We do a similar shift pattern to the one you describe, mrsfran, and there are lots of part-timers with kids. You could consider asking for 2 fixed days a week, perhaps, or look at job-sharing. It's pretty shit though, and seems like a pretty radical change to the way you work.


----------



## Ceej (Jan 14, 2012)

Most employee protection laws are a bit feeble when push comes to shove. I do work in the public sector, but it's a strange job where you can't take out a grievance, Mrs T! In Camden there were 5 test cases against allowing mothers of young children to work more appropriate hours, and lost all five - they rarely bother to contest any more.

If MrsFran managed to do her job perfectly well in the hours she works now, and that work, rather than her specific post still exists within the revised work paterns, it makes it more difficult to argue that, for business reasons, she can't continue. At worst, it's something else to chuck into the pot anyway.


----------



## Ms T (Jan 16, 2012)

You can take out a grievance more generally, but not if you're turned down for flexible working.  You can appeal though, which is what I advise my members to do.


----------



## Spark (Jan 17, 2012)

There's several potential issues here and I can only post via my phone atm so this may not be a particularly coherent reply.

If you apply for one of the roles and don't get it them I presume you will be at risk of dismissal by reason of redundancy. There could be a potential unfair dismissal claim (not constructive dismissal which would arise if you resigned because of something an employer did). Whether dismissal was unfair would depend on a number of factors. Usually the main issue is the selection procedure, eg how they decided whom to offer one of the remaining roles to.

The next issue is entitlement to redundancy pay. Generally an employee who is redundant is entitled to redundancy pay. They can lose that entitlement if they unreasonably refuse an offer of suitable alternative employment. If they offered you one of the new jobs your employer may try and argue that they will not pay your redundancy pay if you turn it down. Whethere a refusal is unreasonable depends on an individual's own circumstances, so turning it down because you cannot work those hours would probably be seen as reasonable.

Finally, there is possible discrimination. This would be indirect sex discrimination - a requirement is applied to all employees but women are more likely to be affected. Potentially the decision to restructure in this way could be discriminatory. If they refused to offer you a post because you wanted to work part-time, or offered you a post but only on a full-time basis could be discriminatory.  

As Ms T said, the flexible working regs are pretty toothless. As you already work PT you may be able to rely on other legislation preventing less favourable treatment of PT workers.

Practically, what to do depends on whether you want to keep your job but stay PT. It's worth pushing the sex discrim angle though. With redundancies in general employers don't have to provide much of an explanation for their decisions, ie why they've decided on.this shift pattern. To defend an indirect discrimination claim they need to show that they have a legitimate aim and the potentially discriminatory practice is a proportionate means of achieving that aim. Given that you've already been working PT that will put the onus on the employer to justify their decision.


----------



## mrsfran (Jan 17, 2012)

Ok, thank you for all your advice everyone. Very much appreciated. Our individual consultations will probably start in the next couple of weeks so I will see how that goes and make any decisions based on that.


----------

