3 ms·
Are you sure about that? My understanding was that the role is made redundant, not the person; that you can't hire someone else to do what a made-redundant pers
by OJFord 4y ago
Are you sure about that? My understanding was that the role is made redundant, not the person; that you can't hire someone else to do what a made-redundant person was just doing (of course it pretty much happens, but on paper/in theory it needs to be different). I don't really see how it makes sense for both to be true.
And in your scenario, wouldn't voluntary redundancy get really weird? 'Denied - because you're qualified for a job in a different department. So keep doing your current one or resign.'
- jimnotgym 4y agoWhen a role is made redundant (in the UK) an employer has a series of steps they have to make. One of which is, if there is another role the employee could do then they have to be offered it. They can refuse of course. In your voluntary redundancy scenario the employee is waving their rights...voluntarily.
- OJFord 4y agoHave to be offered it, or just have to be considered for it? As in, if there's a better qualified person available at the same price (or for that matter you're making two roles redundant and either of those people could do this one other role you have open, but you don't need both) do you really have to give it to the otherwise redundant person?