Hledat v komentářích
Investiční doporučení
Výsledky společností - ČR
Výsledky společností - Svět
IPO, M&A
Týdenní přehledy
 

Detail - články
Redundancy: hiring someone new to replace you may be fair game

Redundancy: hiring someone new to replace you may be fair game

2.4.2012 16:22
Autor: KŠB, KSB

Companies need to operate effectively and therefore from time to time they may need to change the composition of their employees. As such, certain positions may be eliminated and new ones created. In the eyes of fearful employees, being made redundant may be a consequence of such measures. It is not uncommon for employees to believe that if they are made redundant or if “their” positions are eliminated then the employer cannot have any more work for them and they are then surprised to learn they are still expected to carry out their duties until their employment terminates.

Another surprise comes when, after receiving news of the organizational changes and being made redundant, they learn that the company plans to hire new employees – even after they leave the company! Such emotions often lead the employee to file an action against the employer for unfair dismissal, arguing that redundancy surely cannot exist if the company plans to hire new employees.

Three conditions for redundancy

Similar frustrations led an unnamed university employee to file just such an action. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which set out the conditions that must be fulfilled in order for an employer to make an employee redundant: the employer must decide to change its tasks or its technical equipment, to reduce the number of employees in order to increase work efficiency or to make other organizational changes. Following its decision, a specific employee becomes redundant and his/her redundancy must be the result of such decision (a causal link must exist).

Employers are solely responsible for deciding who is to become redundant and the courts are not competent in assessing the factual aspects of their decision, let alone change it. The law allows employers to regulate the number and composition of their employees based on their needs. How could it be otherwise in a democratic society with a free market system? This, however, does not mean that employees should be exposed to their employers’ whims – employees are protected by legal conditions that must be met before employment can be terminated due to redundancy.

The Supreme Court also restated that it does not consider an employer’s decision to make organizational changes to be a labour act but rather a factual act. The decision itself does not automatically lead to changing or terminating an employment relationship. The decision is only one of the conditions – it constitutes the grounds for making a decision to terminate an employment relationship with a redundant employee. Nothing changes for the employee until he/she is notified of the decision and given notice of redundancy.

Nothing more, nothing less

The court is thus competent only to investigate whether a decision was made and whether it was made by the person entitled to do so (an employer in the case of individuals, or a statutory body in the case of legal entities). Nothing more, nothing less. Whether the decision was made depends on the contents of the decision and not on its stated form. In other words: where the employer’s decision indicates that the employer is making the planned changes with the intention to change certain tasks or technical equipment, reduce the number of employees to increase work efficiency or make another organizational changes, the decision can constitute the grounds for dismissing an employee due to redundancy.

In conclusion, we should add that, in the case in question, the position of a “manager” (senior lecturer) in a foreign languages department was eliminated by the employer’s (a university’s) decision and a new employee was engaged in the position of a lecturer. The total number of employees remained the same, but the employee structure in terms of qualifications changed. The court confirmed that the employer’s decision was in compliance with the law and that the act was not discriminatory.

Váš názor
Na tomto místě můžete zahájit diskusi. Zatím nebyl zadán žádný názor. Do diskuse mohou přispívat pouze přihlášení uživatelé (Přihlásit). Pokud nemáte účet, na který byste se mohli přihlásit, registrujte se zde.
Aktuální komentáře
18.6.2018
10:13Praha se probouzí pomalu, v Evropě se daří bankám a telekomunikacím  
9:46Coworking je druhým nejhodnotnějším sektorem světa. WeWork před Airbnb či SpaceX
9:40Nad některými otázkami zápisu změn do obchodního rejstříku
9:18PEGAS NONWOVENS a.s.- oznamuje výsledky valné hromady
9:11Rozbřesk: OPEC+ rozhodne o ropě, euro dál tíží ECB. Co turecké volby?
8:53Výhrůžky USA-Čína budí obavy, evropské burzy asi otevřou poklesem  
8:28Hlupáci staví zdi, komentují čínská média americká cla
5:56Čína má v rukávu energetické eso a hodlá jej plně využít
17.6.2018
15:29Má pořádání fotbalového mistrovství ekonomický smysl?
8:38Víkendář: Elon Musk a umění vysávat vládní peníze
16.6.2018
14:31Nová technologie může odepsat elektromobily a řešit problém s emisemi
7:39Víkendář: Z Evropy se stává Trumpův otloukánek, měla by se postavit na vlastní nohy
15.6.2018
22:03Wall Street ze strachu z nových cel zakončila týden v rudé barvě
18:15Avast vstupuje do indexu pražské burzy PX. Rebalance podrobně  
18:13Investujte do HUB VENTURES. Do světového fenoménu coworkingu
18:01Akcie Erste a CETV si drobně pomohou v regionálním indexu, naopak u ČEZ  
17:50Nové technologie jsou vidět všude. Jen ne tam, kde by to bylo nejvíce potřeba
17:44Komerční banka, a.s. - zveřejňuje informaci o změnách v představenstvu
17:26Americká cla pokazila konec týdne. Dolar ztratil na atraktivitě, ale většinu zisků drží  
17:00Členská základna ČSSD schválila vstup do vlády s hnutím ANO

Související komentáře
    Nejčtenější zprávy dne
    Nejčtenější zprávy týdne
    Nejdiskutovanější zprávy týdne
    Denní kalendář hlavních událostí
    ČasUdálost
    9:00CZ - PPI, y/y