Entitled to Redundancy.?

npgallag

Registered User
Messages
171
Hi..a friend is getting laid off after working in a company for 3.5 yrs on temp. contracts and company says she is not entitled to redundancy..? She kept getting new contracts, varying in length from 6mts to a year, for last 3.5 yrs and working in different roles in same accounts dept. and she feels that they did this so they wouldnt have to pay her redundancy.. Can anyone give me a clear answer as rang citzens info and they didnt clear it up. Thanks
 
Yes i understand the 4 yrs thing but should she still be entitled to redundancy as she has been there longer that 104 weeks continuously..?
"An employee who has worked continuously for at least 104 weeks under a fixed-term or specified purpose contract may qualify for a redundancy payment when the contract ends."
 
Yes i understand the 4 yrs thing but should she still be entitled to redundancy as she has been there longer that 104 weeks continuously..?
"An employee who has worked continuously for at least 104 weeks under a fixed-term or specified purpose contract may qualify for a redundancy payment when the contract ends."


I was not sure about that either, but that quote specifically says "a fixed term contract".
My understanding ids that your friend does not have fixed term contract for more than 2 years. She has a series of shorter term contracts, so this may not apply, but I do not know.
 
I though that might be the case as well but looking into it a bit more I dont think it matters if its a series of short term contract(shorter than 2 yrs) as long as she did not break her service for 2yrs..and citizens information tend to agree so goin to push the case with employer and see what happens.
 
Back
Top