Redundancy vs Termination of contract

[Norwegianbea]

Hello all, I'm sorry if I'm being too simplistic here but I have the feeling that I'm missing something obvious! Seeing as most employment contracts now contain the blurb along the lines of the employer having the right to terminate the contract by giving 1 month's notice and the employee has the right to terminate the contract by giving 1 month's notice for example, why do companies have to go through the process of making people redundant and all the associated costs? Why can't the employer just terminate the contract by giving 1 month's notice? Apologies for what I suspect is a bit of a daft question. Many thanks, NB

[Buenchico]

It's because the termination of the contract by the employer is (irrespective of whether the relevant period of notice is given or not) is legally deemed to be a 'dismissal'. (Section 18, Employment Rights Act 1996). The employee therefore retains the same rights to claim for 'unfair dismissal' that he would have had if the employer had simply sacked him on the spot.

Chris

[Norwegianbea]

Buenchico - thank you very much indeed, now it all makes perfect sense! NB