Reduction in Employees hours may lead to Redundancy


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

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 9 years old.

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. 

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.