Last person leaving, turn out the light!

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by Hal Dalwood

drpeterwardle wrote:

quote:There is quite a cost to making people redundant and I think it naïve to think that a union will somehow get a better deal for people.

I do speak from experience as a member of Unison, and I stand by what I said above:

quote:Unions negotiators may not in the event save your job, if the economic case for redundancies is solid, but they can negotiate a better redundancy deal than anyone could on their own.

Union negotiators can do a lot better than the statutory minimum in the context of redundancies of archaeologists. But is everyone's choice whether they join their workplace union or not.

Hal Dalwood

Bad archaeologist, worse husband

I've advocated people getting union advice before, and I still think its important, but in the private sector (and I include many 'county' and 'charitable' organisations in that) I think the important point is that many people do not qualify for redundancy. Sadly, it will often be those that are cheapest to get rid of, and more expensive to retain, that will go first.

[Unitof1]

In all of the charity unit accounts I read that they have restricted funds, what are theses funds, could they not be diverted to keep the diggers employed?

[kevin wooldridge]

Selecting staff for redundancy is not as cut and dried as some folk will have you believe and there can be certain circumstances where the 2 year time limit can be deemed not to apply i.e if there is insufficient consultation and/or if staff selected for redundancy can show they have been selected unfairly or as a result of prejudicial reason, irrespective of their length of service. An example might be where an employer has say 10 staff on equal length short term contracts and needs to lay off 2. They decide that the pregnant one and the one in the back office because of reason of disability through an earlier accident at work, are a better option than any of the 8 others. In such circumstances a trade union could be a good body to advise you on whether they consider the selection process fair and may be able to help you assert you rights.

Likewise when it comes to redundancy payments, archaeological employment is also not so cut and dried. There are various aggregation schemes in place that many diggers may find themselves covered by if they work for local authority, central government, university, museum and some charity organisations.

By 'aggregation scheme' in this context I mean a scheme where although your current service might be less than the minimum required to be covered by the redundancy provisions under the Employment Act, your aggregated service might be such that you still qualify for a payment. And before anyone asks, No these employments do not have to be continuous. Breaks are allowed if they are for specific reasons i.e earlier redundancy, termination of contract, certain sickness periods etc etc The best way to find out whether you may qualify under such a scheme is to talk to your trade union (or maybe I said that before...).

Persons who are covered by TUPE regulations e.g staff who may have recently been transfered from a county council to a private contractor also have certain legal protections and rights established through the transfer. Again the best people to talk to about such problems if you have any are probably your trade union.

If at the end of the day you find yourself out of a job, but holding the moral high ground vis-a-vis why you were selected for redundancy or whether you have missed out on a payment to which you might be entitled, you would probably need to take your former employer to a tribunal. Whilst it is possible for indivduals to undertake this process, in practice they nearly always lose. Whereas cases put forward by trade unions acting on behalf of their members have a much higher success rate.

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

There a number of stages to the current situation:
1. Not recruiting via places like BAJR (which has already happened) and only appointing posts internally
2. Laying people off at the end of a short term contract (a normal process) and other natural wastage (which is happening)
3. Laying off of people who have been employed less than two years (ie people who are not entitled to redundancy pay)
4. Redundancy of long term field staff (This appears to be happening)
5. Redundancy or demotion of project managers
6. Redundancy of project officers (PO will tend to be employed longer because of report writing)
7. Laying off of post X staff

Well, our unit has got to stage 4, though actually over the last year the individuals were involved in PX due to lack of fieldwork.

How about a poll based on Dr Pete's stages?

[chiz]

I'd add another earlier stage though, where employers rely on subbing to other units in the hope of not laying them off as they have future work, just not yet...the wait and see stage. There are lots of reasons for lack of adverts for diggers, the lack of adverts for supervisors from units who have to advertise under their in-house rules is more worrying.

Most units assume they will lay off most site staff at some point, and only retain a few, they operate on this assumption, they would like a stable workforce, but the ups and downs in work don't allow it.

[Unitof1]

Have the units already spent the post ex money?

[ellie163]

Regarding employers and their policies for selecting who gets laid off... One unit has elected to lay off anyone who has not been working there for a year as this gets them out of paying any redundancy package. This also includes people on rolling contracts as the start of your employment seems to be thought of as when your most recent contract started. This system has amounted to c. 30 basic digger field staff being laid off and a handful of assistants and supervisors. Is this similar to what is going on elsewhere?

[Oxbeast]

That is not the case: continuous employment is continuous employment, even if you're on a series of rolling contracts. Even employers like mine (who only ever give rolling contracts) know this to be the case. These people might have to bring an employment tribunal to get their statutory rights.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/E...G_10037109

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by ellie163 This system has amounted to c. 30 basic digger field staff being laid off and a handful of assistants and supervisors. Is this similar to what is going on elsewhere?

Hi Ellie,

I don't know the unit you work for, but the situation you are describing sounds extremely dodgy. As Peter Wardle pointed out in an earlier mail, if 20 or more people are laid off (irrespective of whether they are entitled to redundancy money) they are entitled to a 30 day consultation period. If the unit has not undertaken the consultation they are in breach of the Employment Act. All of the people laid off are entitled to be paid for the consultation period even if their contracts expire before the end of the period. You have to get union advice here otherwise you are being robbed. (Whats more the DSS could refuse to pay benefits for a period when an employer is supposed to be paying wages).

[drpeterwardle]

Ellie 163 "One unit has elected to lay off anyone who has not been working there for a year as this gets them out of paying any redundancy package".

This is actually fair enough - you have to had worked for somebody for two years before you are entitled to redundancy pay. Equally there is normally a first in last out criteria for selection.

Kevin is right Union membership is vital in such situations. I would recommend anyone to join a Union in times like these.

Peter