Cover additional hours or face redundancy

I and another part-time teacher have been told we are facing redundancy in our dept.
Oddly, we have each been asked if we would be willing to cover the other's hours if they go - so double our hours or face redundancy is the choice. They have also decided not to renew a 3rd part-timer's contract, so could argue that the teacher who agrees to 'up' their hours is actually covering what SHE would have worked, but this is all semantics. By asking one of us to go, they are NOT saving money if they then ask the other to cover. The post, therefore, is not disappearing. How can that be redundancy? Do they have to 'create' a new class of children to be taught in order for it to be the (false) creation of an alternative post??

Assuming that you are all women this may - and please do notice the word may there! - constitute indirect sex discrimination as well as unfair dismissal unless the employer can provide a very good objective reason for what they are doing. On the face of it, based on what you have said, I cannot see a good argument for their suggestion, since if three people are redundant on half time hours and one "post remains on full time hours - then ergo two part-time people have jobs. Since the suggestion is likley to have a gretaer adverse impact on women (since women are more likley to work part time due to other caring responsibilities), that would potentially make this sex discrimination. But you would certainly need to take legal advice on this - obviously I don't know what the employers argument is! You could, if you are minded, share any cost that getting some advice would entail, since this would be a linked case.

Yes we are all women. I went part-time after maternity and another went part time to be able to help look after an aged parent who lives a long way away. The third was only offered part-time so as to job-share with me. However - most of the teachers are women, though we are the only part-timers. They reckon the numbers in the age-range we teach are going to go down, but why not re-deploy? There is one male teacher in another class who just 'appeared' when his wife went on maternity leave. The argument for not selecting him is that the classes he teaches are full, and he is a subject specialist (so is the other p/t teacher selected for redundancy??!)

In this you do not need a comparator - the argument in law is that part-time workers are usually female and that any action which unnecessarily acts to the detrment of part-time workers rather than full time workers is indirect discrimination. Being a subject specialist may be an argument for objective difference - but that is a reason to "not select" rather than to "not include". Assuming you are all teachers, and teach broadly the same age range (or can do so), then the safest way for the employer to do this is to determine how many posts (FTE) they must loose, then put all teachers in th pool for selection and consultation. They may then, as part of the selection criteria, decide that having a subject specialism they require is either a reason to remove someone from the pool, or to weight their scoring to retain that skill.

In any case, the argument about subject specialism appears weak if your colleague is also a subject specialist, because they have offered you both the option, so if you are not a subject specialist then the argument does not hold water. Nor does "the classes being full" hold much water. A full class can be taught by any tyeacher qualified to do so - not by a specific teacher.

But you really would need to take legal advice - the details are crucial and a site like this can only give guidance. The devil, as always, is in the detail.

Many thanks for your advice. As the 'decision' to choose the 2 of us has only been delivered verbally and without witnesses, things may well change once the unions get involved. Perhaps he is just looking for someone to fall on their sword at present, so as to avoid legalities!! A pool of 2 when there are well over a dozen other possibles seems very narrow and manipulative. Presumably the points system would also be manipulated as much as possible. I am not sure if my union has very sharp teeth.

I am afraid that points systems are always manipulated! If an employer is careful and clever then a redundancy situation always gets the result the employer wants. That's just a fact of life. But since two of you have been told the same thing, at least your "verbal" is better than most peoples!

This saga is still rumbling on ... the unions have had NO information from the school and are intending arguing the case for starting the whole process over afresh!

On another point, as the date when we could potentially finish work is 31st August (ages away) what if I found a part-time NON teaching, non local authority job in the meantime? What if I even started this other part-time post BEFORE the redundancy process went any further? If the scenario was that I had 2 part-time jobs prior to being given written notice that I had been selected, could the school / LEA refuse to pay redundancy based on the fact that I still had a p/t job elsewhere?
Thanks.

If you had two part-time jobs (even if one is local authority) which are completely separate jobs and in no way clash with each other, then it would not interfere with your redundancy - it is the post that is made redundant and not you. So if you work Monday, Wednesday and Friday; you could work somewhere else (or accept a job somewhere else) on Tuesday and Thursday and Saturday. The test is that you should not leave your job to work elsewhere. If you don't then you are in the clear. Once redudnancy notice has been served the rules change, and you can accept a job that takes the place of your existing job by giving counter-notice to the employer, without it stopping your redundancy pay (although you may get less notice pay if you leave earlier).

Thankyou SO much for that information. I have been trawling the net for days and failed to find such a concise and useful explanation. You're a lifesaver. I can now look for another part-time post pronto to cover my options. I don't know where the 'thank' button is, but THANKYOU!

Further to the 'redundancy or cover additional hours' issue, I have now had an official letter stating that the financial situation of the school forces 'staff restructuring' and that they now want my shared post to become 1 full-time post as the job-share situation 'did not provide cover that met the educational needs of the class'. Whilst the 'redundancy' threat has been made verbally, this is not included in the letter. I have been 'invited' to increase my hours or 'other options' will be considered. Where do I stand legally? The part-time contract was only signed in Sept 2010, and the implication is redundancy if I refuse, though I cannot prove it. I have verbally offered to increas from 2 to 3 days, but I know they want 4 or 5 days. Can an employer force staff to alter hours in such a situation of financial pressure? Thanks on advance.