Trying to get let go to get Redundancy from Agency Role

FierceMild

Hello all,

Bit of a strange one but I wonder if anyone of you can offer any insight with this.

I work for an Agency and thus am on an Agency contract. I was previously moved from a full-time fixed term contract to an Agency contract with the same agency about a year ago and, to my detriment, never read the contract that I was put on, assuming that it would be the same.

I've decided that I want to move on from the role that I'm in but would like to do so by getting redundancy as I will have been with this agency for 4 years in October 2024 and would therefore be due statutory redundancy if they could not find a role for me.

The role I work in is essentially 9-5 admin. I'm expected in the office during office hours every week for the client I work for. I get on really well with the client organisation that I work for and have received good feedback on my work and they say they plan to make me permanent but the organisation that I work for currently has a hiring freeze (no prizes for guessing who they are!). In any case, I don't think I'd be fulfilled in my current role long-term so I'm planning on leaving.

Reading my contract I see that it states that

"There is no obligation on AGENCY to provide you work and there is no obligation on you to accept the work offered. You have the right to refuse or accept the hours offered to you.
• AGENCY gives no guarantee that hours will be offered to you on a weekly basis.
• AGENCY will endeavour to give you as much notice as possible of hours which are available to you"

" If you accept an assignment offered by AGENCY, these terms shall apply. Between assignments, no contract of employment shall exist between you and AGENCY."

The role I'm in requires me to work on a full time basis but the contract that I'm on is really designed for shift workers or locum medical professionals. I'm required to fill out a timesheet every week to specify what hours I've worked but really this is a formality as I work 35-40HRS every week.

The assignment I'm on will be ending at the end of May. If I'm to follow my contract as stated and only pick and choose the "shifts" that I'm offered I would be unable to fulfill my role.

My question is that if I were to inform my employer (the AGENCY) that I'm now only able to take roles on an ad-hoc basis, surely they'd be required to terminate my employment, or at least, not be able to offer me another assignment (all the other assignments that they have are similar roles AFAIK). If then, they weren't able to offer me another assignment, the employment would cease and they would be forced to give me redundancy. Have I got that right?

Sorry for the long post, but would really appreciate anyone who's been in a similar position. Also, I understand if this might seem like I'm being duplicitious or not treating my employer fairly but I plan on letting the client know in advance to prepare for my exit and I have my own justified (I think anyway) grievances against the agency that I've missed out on bringing to the WRC now due to the 1 year limit on cases.

Thanks for reading the wall of text!

fritzelly

You don't get redundancy for leaving a job of your own free will

The agency is not your employer

Mrs OBumble

What are the chances that the client won't have more work for an agency worker in June? I suspect they will, and that if you turn this down you will be seen as having lost your continuity of service.

You can try playing clever legal games, but if your agency is who I suspect it is, they have deeper pockets and far better lawyers than you do.

CramCycle

I'm pretty sure you don't have it right. No matter what way I read it, you don't get redundancy.

My best advice would be start looking for the job you want, interview, and if you get it, hand in your notice.

bucketybuck

Redundancy is when the role no longer exists.

By your contract as highlighted in the OP, the agency has no obligation to provide you work.

There is no role to be made redundant.

I may be wrong, but you are basically asking that if you turn down the hours they don't have to give you, does that mean you get redundancy...

Please don't waste money on a solicitor.

Kaisr Sose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122044707#Comment_122044707

I am of the same view, though it just my view, not legal advice. What you post above states that no contract of employment exists outside of assignment. If you turn down an assignment, you make yourself unemployed (by your own hand), not the hand or act of the agency.

GSBellew

No, because you are not being made redundant

Tow

Only in the likes of RTE would pay redundancy for this, but even they are now in trouble with Revenue for doing so. For redundancy be paid the role must be made redundant.

mrslancaster

OP situation is not very clear to me - who is the OP employed by, ie. who actually pays the wages and employer prsi - is it the agency or are they paid directly by the client? Have they always been paid by the agency or directly by the client organisation?

Did they previously have a fixed term contract that was arranged by the agency but they were employed/paid directly by the company?

When the FTC finished, did the OP then sign a new contract to work directly for the agency in whatever temporary jobs (assignments or projects) they offered?

witchgirl26

OP in real terms a role is made redundant, not the person as such. The whole idea is that if a role is made redundant, and the person then gets redundancy, the company can't just hire someone else into the same role. It can't be therefore used as a method to get rid of someone.

If the role itself that you perform is not being made redundant, then you will have no entitlement to redundancy. And redundancy is something that takes a long time with a lot of steps so it's highly unlikely an employer would do it unless absolutely necessary.

That doesn't matter whether your an agency worker or directly employed.