Redundancy - Agency Staff or Permanent Staff First

Dublin ACE

I work in a company that is under pressure at the moment, they made alot of people redundant last year and may have to again in the near future. An argument flared up in work recently which I would like to get some advice on. I searched the internet and emailed the National Employers Rights Authority but got no answers or giudance.

Our company has a mix of permanent staff and staff who are hired in through different agencies on an hourly rate. We all do similar work. A paranoid permanent member of staff made a big fuss about the fact if redundancies happen again then the agency staff HAVE to be let go first before any permanent staff are made redundant. He got so irate about it that he stormed into the director and told him letting go permanent members of staff while still hiring agancy staff, to do the same work, would be against the law. The sad thing is he was referring to an agancy staff member who does the same job as him. This agency guy has been with the firm for over ten years.

Anyway, my question is, when a director is choosing to lay off staff, By law or Employment rights, do they have to choose the agency staff member before the Permanent Staff member?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Nody

You can't get legal advice here but a non legal advice is that if there is less work then the company decide who to let go (barring the big seven as selection criteria). Their mode of employement at that time is of no interest. Agency staff tends to be let go first because it is easier but no requirement as far as I'm aware.

Newaglish

Dublin ACE wrote: »

Anyway, my question is, when a director is choosing to lay off staff, By law or Employment rights, do they have to choose the agency staff member before the Permanent Staff member?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

The guidance is as follows:

Citizens Information wrote:

Unfair selection for redundancy

Although a redundancy situation exists, you may have grounds for complaint if the manner of your selection for redundancy was unfair.

In selecting a particular employee for redundancy, an employer should apply selection criteria that are reasonable and are applied in a fair manner. You are entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if you consider that you were unfairly selected for redundancy or consider that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist. Examples of these situations might include where the custom and practice in your workplace has been last in, first out and your selection did not follow this procedure. Another example may be where your contract of employment sets out criteria for selection which were not subsequently followed.

Under the unfair dismissals legislation, selection for redundancy based on certain specific grounds is considered unfair. These include redundancy as the result of an employee's trade union activity, pregnancy or religious or political opinions.

The employment equality legislation also prohibits selection for redundancy that is based on any of the following nine grounds: gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, religious belief, race, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community.

The main points to be aware of are:

• Custom and practice (has it always been the norm in the company to let agency staff go first? Or first in first out for identical roles?)
• Employment contract (Does it state any particular rules regarding redundancy in your contract of employment?)
• Union agreement (Is there a trade union agreement that states agency staff should be let go first?)

There are however, two aspects to your posts I believe. If the employer were to make people redundant and hire external agency employees to replace them, there would be a possible case for unfair dismissal. Is this what is happening?

D.McC

Agency 1st...

mikemac

I don't know the law but common sense would seem to suggest agency staff go first.

After all, if you're making permanent staff redundant but bringing in agency staff then something is amiss

Dublin ACE

Nody: fair enough, I shouldn’t be asking for legal advice. I am interested in peoples objective opinion of the matter and appreciate everybody’s comments.

Newaglish: I had trawled through redundancy rights and citizens information pages and I think you found the most relevant extract, so thanks for that.

Newaglish and feelingstressed asked the question “Are they making people redundant and hiring agency staff to replace them?” It’s a fair question but that’s not something that has happened and I don’t believe it is something they will do. If the work starts to come in again I genuinely believe they will re-hire people that have been let go.

In the first three rounds of redundancy they mostly let agency staff go and some “last in” permanent staff. Agency staff are at all levels in the company so I think (if there is another round) it will probably be a mix of agency staff and permanent staff again. It’s not mentioned anywhere in our contracts, and according to that extract from citizens information, once they follow a consistent selection process then it is probably irrevelant whether they are agency or permanent.
The agency staff that are left are the valuable ones who are particularily good at their jobs, but as Nody, Newaglish, DMcC and feelingstressed have all indicated, it makes financial sense to let go them go first before permanent staff (especially staff who have been here for over 2 or 3 years), as it is simply cheaper.

I think that redundancy is a very sensitive issue and this is probably why there is little guidance on the specific order which an employer must consider. It is sad to watch my fellow workers turn on each other, but this is what happens when you are living for two years, month to month with the treat of being cut at any stage.

Anyway thanks for your comments and fingers crossed there will be no more rounds.