How are employees selected for redundancy?

Unlees the law has changed in the last few years, that is not the case. I think the 30 days are a recommendation, so the company has a better chance of demonstrating that adequate time was given for consultation.

depending on the organisation, in unionised settings especially inthe public sector there is usually a magic age - at one point in the NHS it was 50 when if there was the slightest hint of redundancy or 'skill mix adjustment' involving someone over 50 they could opt for retirement with their penison paid up to fully paid / as many years as if they had served until 65

At 23:53:45 on 21/01/2009, Steve Slatcher delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Unless it's changed in the last year, it is the case. If at least 20 people from the same site are to be made redundant within 90 days of each other, the employer is obliged to consult with the employees 'at risk'. This period is 30 days for 20-99 people, and 90 days for 100+.

Well there you go, that confirms that what John stated is *not* the case, because he did not qualify his "less than 100" with "at least

20". For example 10 people clearly falls into the "less than 100" range, yet no consultation would be required.

Now, if for example 150 people must go, and if the purpose of the consultation is to determine *which* 150 should go from those at risk, then let's face it, 90 days is a long time and it could quite conceivably be the case that things get bad so quickly that there is not enough money to employ 150 people unproductively for 90 days. So it's a pretty daft law and, like a number of other laws, though well meant, can have the opposite effect to that intended. In this case, the employer's only alternative would be to make not just the necessary 150 people redundant, but *all* those at risk at the site in question (in effect closing down the site, thereby perhaps avoiding the need for any redundancies at other sites). The idea being that as there is no longer any question of how those which will be let go are to be picked from those at risk (since *everybody* at risk will be "picked"), there will no longer be any point in a consulation.

I'll leave the reader to decide if it's a rule or a recomendation

tim

BTW I singled out one particular aspect of John's post for criticism. The rest looked pretty spot on to me.

You are right, but it must be laid down somewhere as all the available advice says that "unrepresented" staff should also be consulted

It's 20

tim

Yes, there should be an adequate consultation period, but a few years ago (things may have changed, as I said), and for very small numbers of redundancies, there is no minimum time. That was my sole point.

What's 20? This seems to be the relevant bit of the document and I see no mention of 20.

(2) The consultation must begin at the earliest opportunity, and in any event? (a) where the employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 100 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, at least 90 days before the first of those dismissals takes effect; (b) where the employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant at least

10 but less than 100 employees at one establishment within a period of 30 days or less, at least 30 days before the first of those dismissals takes effect.

So it does.

The Berr page that I got the (name of the) posted act from, says 20, as does the ACAS site

I've no idea where they get this from

tim