Say the company only needs 5 drivers instead of 10 because they lose work - is last in, first out legal?
Don’t think it is anymore.Certainley was’nt done that way when we went through it.Done on time of sick,paperwork done properly,Accident record and few other thing’s.like a points system I think.
Don’t know if it is legal! But would be beneficial to the company paying the redundancy! Longer service usually means a higher redundancy payout! Is it happening at your work then? 
merc0447:
Say the company only needs 5 drivers instead of 10 because they lose work - is last in, first out legal?
Not if they do it by the book. They’re meant to score everyone such as on timekeeping, ability to do the job, sickness etc.
They did this at our place and the biggest tear arse was laid off. People couldn’t understand why but when scored, he was marked down by customer complaints, damage to vehicle, the fact he rushed about and then dossed in the yard for 2 hours a day rather than drive slower and not upset everyone.
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employment
Assuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
A company might ask for volunteers to go but they are not required to by any law I have seen or know about
They can bring qualifications and experience into the equation also. Driver x with full DCPC and ADR with 2 years service may be kept over driver y with neither but 5 years service.
I think the company would have to inform all 10 they were in consultation with a view to losing 5 and then each of the 10 would be scored on the same criteria with the top 5 staying. In reality however the will probably have personal preferences.
direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ … G_10029832
A few answers here.
NickW:
I think the company would have to inform all 10 they were in consultation with a view to losing 5 and then each of the 10 would be scored on the same criteria with the top 5 staying. In reality however the will probably have personal preferences.
Pretty much this.
Bear in mind though that personalities will come into it and it will more than likely be the chosen ones that stay. Don’t automatically assume that it will be the arse kissers though. Quite often the ones that keep their heads down and get on with the job are preferred when the chips are down.
When it comes to your assessment you should be given a one to one interview and your score should be explained to you. If you think you deserve better then say do as it might mean the difference between keeping your job and the dole.
Cheers
Neilf
No surprise that the hypocritical modern day lot don’t want the fair old established last in first out rule when they are the last ones in but you can bet they would if they were the first ones in.
ROG:
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employmentAssuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
The idea that the firm’s longest serving employees would also be the least proficient seems to contradict the fact that they are the longest serving and not sacked long before on the grounds of incompetence. 
Carryfast:
ROG:
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employmentAssuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
The idea that the firm’s longest serving employees would also be the least proficient seems to contradict the fact that they are the longest serving and not sacked long before on the grounds of incompetence.
It could be that the type of job being done is done more profiently by younger healthier drivers
Carryfast:
ROG:
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employmentAssuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
The idea that the firm’s longest serving employees would also be the least proficient seems to contradict the fact that they are the longest serving and not sacked long before on the grounds of incompetence.
Just sacking someone isn’t very easy these days though even if they only perform their duties to the minimum.
Some of the newer people in may actually be more flexible in their work, they may even be more capable than some of the longer standing employees.
However nowadays it seems that firms look at how much it costs to get rid of employees and base everything on that, is that fair?
Recent experience here by the way. Perfect work record, only dropped points for length of service, yet longer service employees nearing retirement were refused voluntary redundancy even though a couple of them were on disciplinary.
ROG:
Carryfast:
ROG:
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employmentAssuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
The idea that the firm’s longest serving employees would also be the least proficient seems to contradict the fact that they are the longest serving and not sacked long before on the grounds of incompetence.
It could be that the type of job being done is done more profiently by younger healthier drivers
So it’s all about promoting ageism in the workplace then instead of the government’s so called attempts to stamp it out.If being laid off from my job at the depot in Feltham,at the age of 25,with my own agreement,to save the job of a long standing driver,who was less than 10 years from retirement,who’s depot at Cullompton was being closed down, was good enough for me,then it’s good enough for the younger drivers now.
No surprise that my respect for my elders helped when the firm then honoured it’s promise to take me back on as soon as possible.
But if it’s that important that the job can only be done by ‘younger’ healthier drivers then it doesn’t seem to have much going for it as a long term job prospect in the case of paying off a mortgage being that it’s only going to be at best a 10 year contract before the driver is too knackered to carry on doing it. 
I was last made redundant back in 2008, and that worked on last in 1st out rule.
They kept the trouble causing, loud mouth who was only a class 2 driver, they kept the idiot that kept bashing the trucks and even bashed the brand new van, but I was made redundant with no payment due to only 4mths service (that time, I’d worked for them before on nights)
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
ROG:
The are no laws regarding who goes first etc when redundancies are being sought by a company unless there are specific conditions written into the contracts of employmentAssuming all drivers are on the same pay rate then it is usual for a company to either get rid of the least proficient drivers in their opinion or those which will cost less to get rid of
The idea that the firm’s longest serving employees would also be the least proficient seems to contradict the fact that they are the longest serving and not sacked long before on the grounds of incompetence.
Just sacking someone isn’t very easy these days though even if they only perform their duties to the minimum.
Some of the newer people in may actually be more flexible in their work, they may even be more capable than some of the longer standing employees.However nowadays it seems that firms look at how much it costs to get rid of employees and base everything on that, is that fair?
Recent experience here by the way. Perfect work record, only dropped points for length of service, yet longer service employees nearing retirement were refused voluntary redundancy even though a couple of them were on disciplinary.
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a job 
.
I went through the process a few years back but wasn’t selected for redundancy. As has been said it was assessed on a points system for a number of different factors. Length of service absence skills and qualifications accident record etc.
I suppouse firms could be reluctant to made long servers redundant due to the larger payouts.
When they did redundancies recently at our place the criteria was number of accidents, points on license, sick days and disciplinaries. Length of service didnt even come into it. Unfortunatly we had an all round good bunch of reliable drivers so the ones that went did so because of a speeding ticket they got.
Carryfast:
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a job
This is the kind of ■■■■■ usually sprouted by the laziest man on the firm who thinks his job should be secure just because he hasn’t bothered to better himself for donkeys years.
The decision by a company to make employees redundant is not one that is usually taken lightly. In the event that it is a necessary then what a company is looking for is to move forward with the staff best suited to helping the business in its current state…
Sometimes this will be the long servers and sometimes it will be a new start. If an assessment is done properly there will be points awarded for length of service which in effect will give the longer serving employee a head start. If he doesn’t make the grade in other areas of the assessment then why should he keep his job over a guy who is better suited to the role but maybe has less time served?.
It’s survival of the fittest out there and the best way to optimise your chances of job security is to do job to the best of your abilities.
By the way I am employee not employer and went through this process around two years ago. As drivers we were fobbed off with a load of lies about the company getting rid of it’s own transport and all let go. To this day the same trucks can still be seen doing exactly the same work. All they did was keep on a few plant operators with HGV tickets and got them to do the work at vastly reduced rates to what they were paying us.
To a man the drivers all held plant tickets and in my opinion were better all rounders but our pay scale was also much higher.
Fair?, I don’t think, but I got it looked into and legally it’s watertight. The company downsized through necessity are now getting the same work done for considerably less. Objective achieved I would say.
Cheers
Neilf
Carryfast:
So a firm takes on new staff because business seems to be on the upturn but the things go downhill again then you’re saying it’s fair to get rid of the long standing loyal workforce to keep the new starters in a job
If you were to actually read my post you would see that the long standing loyal workforce that you are talking about actually want the ■■■■ out. They had volunteered for redundancy because they saw the way the job was going. However this was denied to them onely because it was cheaper to get rid of us shorter time people.
Get your lefty facts right before you start criticising people who are just trying to keep employment when others are looking for an easy way out.