Hypothetical employment question for you...

[fox20thc]

 

Lets say you and a group of colleagues were doing a role at work for a period of time and that role ceased. Then you get wind that they have reinstated the role but you and two of your colleagues have been excluded from the reinstatement.

 

Upon querying this, it is clarified that the exclusion was based on our status as part time employees. Bearing in mind the role is not time tight or specific to a set period in the working day.

 

Would you say it was discriminatory?

[fox20thc]

Guys this is not a trick question, I'm looking for perspective.

[riptony]

If its better for your employer that fulltime employees did the role then fairplay, otherwise why would they have made the change?

[fox20thc]

If its better for your employer that fulltime employees did the role then fairplay, otherwise why would they have made the change?

 

No change, its a long long story... it makes no difference who does the job as I said its not time sensitive etc.

[Thunzi]

I don't think it is discriminatory. If the employer feels that it requires a full time employee to do the job properly then it's up to them. Its very difficult to give a proper opinion without knowing more detail, but as none have you have been made redundant and they are not refilling the position, just reprioritising, I don't think you have any cause for complaint.

[Tricky]

Are/were you a member of a union Fox?

[fox20thc]

but as none have you have been made redundant and they are not refilling the position, just reprioritising, I don't think you have any cause for complaint.

 

:suspect: that's the long story... and their is no basis for it to be full time specific. The people in question (hypothetically speaking ) did the job competently for 18mths prior.

 

Are/were you a member of a union Fox?

 

You betcha

[riptony]

No change, its a long long story... it makes no difference who does the job as I said its not time sensitive etc.

 

oops, you didn't understand what I wrote.

 

Your employer has made a change from part timers doing a role to full timers doing the role, I understand the role is staying the same.

 

But surely they have made this change for a reason. perhaps in the future the role is to be extended, perhaps the fulltimers can do the role better due to the other stuff they do......but surely there is a reason. since you're not giving any info, this points could be irrelivent

[Thunzi]

:suspect: that's the long story... and their is no basis for it to be full time specific. The people in question (hypothetically speaking ) did the job competently for 18mths prior.

Well hypothetically speaking, if someone was made redundant and the employer is now re-staffing the job under the same job title/description then they are being more than discriminatory, they are breaking the law. That's only in regard to the person who was made redundant though. If they are still in employment and have been moved to another position for the same pay the employer is still correct in his actions.

 

I can understand why, hypothetically, the employee may feel as though they are being discriminated against, but from a legal standpoint I don't think the employee is. The employer sets the terms of contract which the employee then signs up to. In your opinion there is no need for it to be a full time employee, the employer must feel differently so it's possible the role is being expanded to incorporate more duties.

 

It would probably be worthwhile seeing a union representative, however I don't see much hope in doing so (from what information I have at this time). If there's more to it, and redundancies are involved the employees have a much better case.

[fox20thc]

Hypothetically speaking I would be contacting my amicus rep tonight