Reduction in Employees hours may lead to Redundancy

legal updates

An employee was dismissed for refusing to work a reduced number of hours.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

What are the implications when an employee refuses to work a reduced number of hours, when the business dictates that it is necessary? 

In a recent case, an employee was dismissed for refusing to work a reduced number of hours, after it was deemed that there were no longer full time hours of their position.  It was held by the Tribunal that as such, they had been made redundant and were entitled to the relevant payment such a dismissal entails.

The Tribunal relied upon Section 139 (1)(b)(i) which states that an employee is considered to have been made redundant if dismissed by reason of redundancy if ; 

‘ the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.’

The issue here was that the employer had tried to prevent redundancies by asking all staff to take a reduction in their hours.  When they refused, the employer was left with no option but to dismiss them by terminating their contract.  This is consistent with current case law which states that if the employee does not wish to reduce the workforce, the employee will not have been made redundant. 

The Tribunal held that as the work had diminished to a level that not as many hours were needed to fulfil the role the position would fall into the S139 definition and therefore the employee was to be made redundant.  As such the employee was entitled to a redundancy payment. 

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Employment Bill of Rights 2024

The Employment Rights Bill proposes that paternity and parental leave will now fall into a “day one right” of employment.

Notice to Dismiss – Reminder!

The law states an employer or employee who terminates employment is required to provide the following notice…

Day 1 Employment Rights

Employees are already protected from day one in respect of wrongful dismissal and discrimination, but a dismissal based on poor conduct, for example, can be effected by giving relevant notice. 

Overview of Contemplated Employment Law Changes

We will continue to keep our members informed as more details emerge and as the timeline for these changes becomes clearer.

Changes to Sexual Harassment Law

In addition to safeguarding employees from harassment by colleagues, the duty extends to third-party harassment, such as harassment by customers.

New government… new laws

The recent announcement means an employee may be able to claim an unfair dismissal from day one. 

When Travel Time Counts As Work

A prudent employer will ensure that the working arrangements, employment policies, or employment contracts clearly define when travel time constitutes paid work time.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.