Redundancy rumours

[Jas52]

My son works for a company and there are two people doing his particular job at the moment. Due to the credit crunch, rumours are rife that management are wanting to get rid of one person. His colleague started a month or two after him and has been on performance reviews and been generally regarded as not as good at their job as my son.

However, it has been suggested by another employee (not management) that my son may be the most likely to be made redundant as it would seem like victimisation if they were to let the other person go.

I just wondered if this sounds feasible, and if the worst happens and he is made redundant, is there anything that my son can do about it or is it just a case of accepting it as a sign of the times?

I'd be very grateful for any comments.

[factor-fiction]

I wouldn't take much notice of opinions/speculation of other colleagues. There is a good chance the newer employee will be selected to leave on a LIFO basis, or if the two of them have to apply for the one role your son may be in a reasonable position

[cassa333]

Well there are ongoing redundancies at my oh place of work and the bloke in his department made redundant was rated below one who hadn't been there as long, was less qualified, made more mistakes, needed more supervision and had more time off. However he was mates with the boss.

My oh is a quiet, get on with the job plodder who has over 22 years with the firm and isn't mates with anyone so we are assuming he is next!!

[buildersmate]

Agree with the first two good answers.
The third answer may well happen in a few organisations but does not meet the requirements of the various redundancy legislation and could be challenged as being an unfair process.

[cassa333]

It could be wrong what they have done but being one of the biggest firms in the country in it's sector it has probably covered itself well. And most of the are pragmatic enough to know that the hassle of doing anything can be too stressful to do.

By the way if you have someone doing a particular job and is salaried and an 'assistant' who is a contractor who is likely to be made redundant? Do they have to get rid of the contractor first or not?

[buildersmate]

Contractors may not be employees, Cassa - depends if they are employed through a third party. Or they may be self-employed and on a contract for services - in which case they are also not an employee of the company.

Or they may be employed but on 'temporary contracts'.
Or they may be self-employed and on a contract for services.

[cassa333]

Self employed through his own company and contracted for services. He gives an invoice every month.

He gets paid more for his three days than my oh does for a 60 hr week.

[buildersmate]

In this situation Cassa, the self-employed person is not an employee of the company and he has no employment rights whatsoever. You obviously appreciate the difference - he has a contract for services, not a service contract and could be told to be off at the end of this week.

[cassa333]

But could the company keep the contractor and get rid of the employee?

[buildersmate]

Oh, I see.
The general idea behind having contractors is to retain some flex in the resources, so they go first when times get hard. Otherwise there isn't a lot of point in using them - given the extra costs involved. Contractors can be released at zero cost.
If an organisation tries to keep contractors doing the same job as employees, making the employees redundant, they are asking for an unfair dismissal claim from the employees - on the grounds that they failed to draw up the pool of resources correctly.