Can You Be Forced to Switch to Full-Time from Part-Time Work?

frostman on 16/04/2024 - 13:05

Hey guys, I was employed by this non-for profit org as a part-time permanent for over 3 years, been smooth sailing until…
Recently the manager/ceo casually advised in a team meeting that he wants me to convert to fulltime because there's more work required, I advised due to taking care at home of my elderly mum, I cannot commit to more hours than the standard PT hours I was hired for. I dont think he liked the answer.

Last week I received an email from the HR manager inviting me to a meeting to discuss the org's (very specific) operational restructure to make this role a FT role and do discuss impacts it has on my family, essentially between the lines, it's moreso advising that the PT role is no longer available.

What are my options, I'm unable to do more hours and my original employment offer was perm PT.
Sounds like if i say no, im going to be sacked.

Education & Work

Comments

  • Hybroid on 16/04/2024 - 13:07
    +31

    They can spin a redundancy a million different ways and remain fully legal.

    You’ll need to agree an arrangement that works for you, or will have to find another employer.

    Have you discussed flexible working arrangements maybe?

    • freefall101 on 16/04/2024 - 16:44
      +2

      The thing is that they sound like they haven't spun it, they've just decided this is the way they're going. I don't think they've really thought very hard about what they're doing.

      Arguing that a role has to be full time as a requirement is kinda difficult, because the work hasn't changed. Firing someone because their carer duties got in the way is a discrimination minefield waiting to happen too.

      I've seen redundancies spun every which way at large companies, but I'd be looking closely at the award/agreement on this one.

      • El cheepo on 16/04/2024 - 18:06
        +2

        The thing is that they sound like they haven't spun it, they've just decided this is the way they're going.

        In person sure.

        But if push comes to shove and they do make the op redundant, you can be sure it will be a valid/legal reason on paper.

        They won’t outright say the real reason.

        • mattyman on 17/04/2024 - 09:05
          -2

          They can only make someone redundant if the role is no longer required. That is not the case in this instance.

          • El cheepo on 17/04/2024 - 09:36
            +4

            @mattyman: Theres a couple of ways the HR department could still make the OP redundant.

            1) Depending on their contract agreement, the role may in fact no longer be suitable for the OP because of their time constraints and the additional hours required. Depends on the wording of their contract if thats a viable option.

            2) HR could find a legal way to say the role is no longer needed and then just reconstruct the exact same role with slightly different role requirements (so same job, just different contract wording - but the exact same work requirement albeit more hours)

            HR is usually not anyone but the business owners friend.

            • donman92 on 18/04/2024 - 08:36
              +1

              @El cheepo: Yea, that happened with 2 people in my previous job. 2 weeks later we had 2 new people doing the same job with slightly different titles.

          • Poor Ass on 18/04/2024 - 09:09

            @mattyman: the PT is no longer required now

          • skittlebrau on 18/04/2024 - 10:23

            @mattyman: Out of curiosity, can they make OP redundant and then simply change the name of the role/position and tweak the work responsibilities just enough to avoid this?

            • May4th on 18/04/2024 - 10:46

              @skittlebrau: the short answer is yes. the long answer is it's a murky grey zone and you would never know the legality of it 100% until it's contested. but how much does the average joe have in terms of money and time to fight it? all to keep a job knowing they are unwanted and will be ostracized if they stay? it's a losing battle unfortunately

              • Jackson on 19/04/2024 - 08:14

                @May4th: Not to mention that pay outs are calculated in weeks' pay and in this case only working part time makes any pay out less

            • Powershopz on 18/04/2024 - 14:41

              @skittlebrau: 100%. Companies do this all the time to get rid of people they don't want. Or they need to do it to keep higher ups happy, then back fill.

              e.g.
              Company XYZ - "The role of 'Volunteer Coordinator' is no longer required in this team."
              Wait 1-3 months for attention to die down.
              Company XYZ is now hiring a 'Volunteers Administrator/ Volunteer Associate/Support Coordinator' for this team.

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/04/2024 - 07:46
        +2

        They are not firing anyone.
        They are offering longer hours.
        They are within thier rights to end the part time role and offer a full time role in its place. .

        Its OPs problem if they cant take on the full time role.
        Its not discrimination at all.

        • SlickMick on 17/04/2024 - 08:47
          +2

          Depends on the agreement. Where I work, employees have a right to flexible work arrangements. One dropped to 2 days per week plus a 3rd day every other week, and we had to try to fill a part time position for the alternate days.

          If OP has a good agreement, and/ or a good union, employer could be forced to make another parttime position for the extra work.

          I think a union would challenge making a position redundant because there is too much work for it.

        • freefall101 on 17/04/2024 - 12:29
          +3

          I used "firing" in place of redundancy. It's definitely not a resignation in this situation.

          Here is the descriptor for a redundancy. Tell me where what you said fits in there.

          And legally it absolutely is discrimination.

          I love how many HR experts there are on the internet who have never actually seen a case go to the FWC or courts.

          • El cheepo on 17/04/2024 - 16:57
            +1

            @freefall101:

            I love how many HR experts there are on the internet who have never actually seen a case go to the FWC or courts.

            Generally it’s a mix of wannabe legal experts and people who have experienced or seen similar events unfold in their own life or workplace.

            For me, I’ve seen it done several times over the years in various ways.

            But you are right, I’ve never seen a case go to FWC or the courts.
            I would assume because the vast majority of people just take it on the chin and move on.

            I’m not suggesting thats good or what the OP should do - just seems to be the norm from personal observations.

            Most people would rather take the redundancy (legal or not) and get a good reference rather than risk a lengthy court battle for a job they would later regret fighting to keep.

            I can’t imagine a persons workplace would be the most welcoming warm environment after losing a FWC investigation.

            • May4th on 18/04/2024 - 10:48
              +1

              @El cheepo: this, there's zero incentive to fight it, unless it's personal, you are almost always better off taking the reference and moving on to a hopefully better job

            • freefall101 on 18/04/2024 - 11:38
              +1

              @El cheepo: Totally agree, the second that it gets to the point your employer is trying to force you out the door it's usually best to take the redundancy payment on offer and run. Because they'll find a way to force someone out eventually if they really want to.

              It bugs me that people are spinning that this is perfectly legal when it's not though, it's why employers like OPs do stuff that they shouldn't be allowed to.

              You'd probably be surprised what people are willing to take to FWC though, there are 31 hearings today in Melbourne alone. Most of the time it's quick and easy, although court cases are obviously a lot longer.

      • bman20 on 18/04/2024 - 11:27

        Arguing that a role has to be full time as a requirement is kinda difficult, because the work hasn't changed

        The level of work has increased to warrant a full time staff member, it has certainly changed. The part time role is naturally redundant in this case, there is no need to spin any aspect of this. A part time role and full time role are different roles. If OP cannot perform FT hours and that is what is now required, there would be no issue in making them redundant.

        • freefall101 on 18/04/2024 - 11:53

          That is an alteration to the hours worked, not the work itself. The two are clearly different under the Fair Work Act, which is what legally matters.

    • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:07

      They can spin a redundancy a million different ways and remain fully legal.

      How? the PT role can't go because they're increasing it.

      Have you discussed flexible working arrangements maybe?

      Yes, they're not keen on any WFH arrangements.

      • Hybroid on 16/04/2024 - 21:33
        +8

        That's the thing… Your PT role is no longer required so can be made redundant. A FT role is required instead which they can mark as sufficiently different as you are unable to fulfill that required role.

        There's also a myth that companies cannot hire people for recently made redundant roles which is incorrect. HR's job is to put legal spins on everything to protect the company first and foremost, not the employees.

        Anyway, not intending to be doom and gloom but wanted to make sure you aware of that perspective. Here's hoping some positive outcome can be agreed for your sake.

    • JDMcarfan on 16/04/2024 - 13:44
      +23

      why on earth would you do that. let them make you redundant and pay you for the entitlements you should receive

        • Poor Ass on 18/04/2024 - 09:11

          overpopulation means any job is up for grabs

      • tsunamisurfer on 16/04/2024 - 14:35
        -7

        Why would there be redundancy payments?

        The role isn't redundant, in fact its the opposite, its now more work more money.

        • JDMcarfan on 16/04/2024 - 14:47
          +7

          But it's not the role they contractually joined under, thus the job they had will soon no longer exist.
          They also can't force you into a role that you cannot take (due to your pre-existing obligations), and given their "restructure" the PT role is no longer required as it will be fulfilled by the FT position
          As the role is no longer required, then they will need to make OP redundant.
          They will try and transition OP to suitable alternative employment internally (in lieu of a redundancy package, and perhaps just directly offer that FT role) but OP is under no obligation to follow through if they don't wish (however if they interview for and are offered a role internally, that can be considered a valid opportunity).
          If no valid opportunities (sorry don't know the technical word for it) arise in the transitional period, then employment will cease and OP will be made redundant.
          Being a NFP, I'd expect the entitlements to be quite generous (albeit a little less as you are PT) but should give OP ample time to spend time with their parent and look for a suitable job. Kinda a no brainer if you ask me, and you should get 10/10 references if you leave on good terms.

          P.S. I went through a similar scenario (I'm FT although) just under a year ago. 3 years at a Big ASX corp, and got 2 weeks gardening leave followed by 6 weeks transitional leave before employment was terminated. I got a hefty redundancy payout (after including accrued LSL (has to be paid for redundancies) and my annual leave entitlements).

          • cheapass88 on 16/04/2024 - 16:41
            +2

            @JDMcarfan: That's correct, the PT role can be made redundant and then they can create a new role FT with same responsibilities.

          • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:08

            @JDMcarfan:

            As the role is no longer required, then they will need to make OP redundant.

            How? that's impossible, dont they need to demonstrate the role is no longer required for redundancy?
            How can they do that when they're telling me do MORE of this work?

            ..and got 2 weeks gardening leave followed by 6 weeks transitional leave before employment was terminated.

            What's transitional leave?

            • JDMcarfan on 17/04/2024 - 08:32

              @frostman: Transitional leave is time the company allocates to redundant employees prior to formal termination to look for employment whilst still being paid. It’s mainly to allow older/long term employees the opportunity to find work internally so they can continue their with their leave/super entitlements.

            • SlickMick on 17/04/2024 - 08:54

              @frostman: I think it depends on who's going to fight it. If you have a union, I don't think they would like a permenant role being made redundant because there is too much work for it. Without a union, it depends whether your willing to fight it alone.

              I've never had a job I'd be willing to fight for, but I do know someone who used thier union to fight for more wages. The battle was vicious, but once it was concluded it was never discussed again and everyone is professional. YMMV.

            • JDMcarfan on 17/04/2024 - 15:30
              +3

              @frostman: what i expect will happen if you refuse to go to FT is;
              - they'll hire someone for a FT position with the same responsibilities as yourself
              - ask you to train them up on all the processes you manage
              - once new person is competent (or near it) they'll make you redundant (the wording the need to use is very loose, i.e. "due to organisational requirements your role is now no longer needed at XXX pty")

              This way they've demonstrated that they don't need it no longer and have no capability gaps due to your departure.
              If I were you, I'd be all for this (whilst giving nothing away), the pay packet alone is worth it, and I believe if you stay on LT you will come to hate it as:
              - You'll likely get alienated from management for not going FT
              - Regret your choice for going FT because you complied.
              If you resign at this point, then you get $0 so easy decision.
              You have a genuine reason to stay PT, so stick to your guns, You can't be fired for this reason, so redundancy is a win-win.

              • Slinky0111 on 17/04/2024 - 18:40
                +1

                @JDMcarfan: Glad to finally see some common sense in this thread. Saves me typing up the exact same thing.

            • bman20 on 18/04/2024 - 11:30
              +1

              @frostman:

              dont they need to demonstrate the role is no longer required for redundancy?

              They have already done that by explaining they require the role to be FT. The PT role is redundant from what you have said as they no longer require someone working PT, they require someone working FT.

              It is like saying that my employer has asked me to move interstate as my role is not required in the state i am living in. The existing role is redundant and they are offering you the new role that is now required.

              The sense of entitlement here is bonkers.

        • brad1-8tsi on 16/04/2024 - 17:40
          +2

          The role isn't redundant, in fact its the opposite, its now more work more money.

          The role was offered and contracted as 3 days/week. That offer Has now changed to 5 days which makes the original role redundant. If the OP can't do 5 days then they have to be offered redundancy from their 3 day contracted role.

  • ThithLord on 16/04/2024 - 13:11
    +1

    Are you part of a union?

    • jv on 16/04/2024 - 13:59
      -7

      or garlic?

    • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:10

      sadly no,

      • pizzip on 17/04/2024 - 12:33
        +1

        Why not? Serious question, not trying to be antagonistic.

        • frostman on 17/04/2024 - 13:04

          I never thought they were useful, always had this impression in the corporate world, Unions are like Legal Aid,
          i.e. nowhere near as powerful in the labour force

      • momo1988 on 17/04/2024 - 13:27
        +1

        Not too late to join to handle this current issue you're facing.

  • Mechz on 16/04/2024 - 13:26
    +19

    Pitch them the idea of another part timer doing the 2 days you can't.

    • frostman on 17/04/2024 - 13:09
      -7

      they somewhat provided a counter-offer saying if u dont ,then we'll hire someone else and have u job share with them, feels like a demotion.

      • BartholemewH on 17/04/2024 - 15:20
        +7

        Feels like a valid solution if you want to stay on.

      • sumyungguy on 17/04/2024 - 15:25

        Job sharing is a widely accessed flexible working arrangement. If deployed as a partnership, be wary of finding a person of equivalent proficiency who doesn't go around undermining you when you're off shift. You can manoeuvre to your advantage by being appointed the senior partner in your job-sharing arrangement. Otherwise your employer can engage two people P/T to do the same role as 1.0 FTE.

      • mooney on 18/04/2024 - 13:36
        +9

        I don’t understand this viewpoint. They believe they need additional resource and they want you to work full time hours to meet this need. You can’t. They say they’ll be flexible and meet your needs and and create a job share that gives the best of worlds. You complain that it’s a demotion?!

        I don’t know what you’re looking for? From what I can see you’ve zero chance of redundancy, your job can still be available as is. It’s just now shared and you don’t like it.

  • Drakesy on 16/04/2024 - 13:35
    +2

    What are my options, I'm unable to do more hours and my original employment offer was perm PT.
    Sounds like if i say no, im going to be sacked.

    AKA made redundant.
    And yep they do have the right to do this if your role in its capacity will technically not exist.

    • Switchblade88 on 16/04/2024 - 14:36
      +4

      If they are asking for more hours and not a change in responsibilities or tasks, then it'd be a very hard sell to Fair Work that the role is 'redundant'. The employer wants more work done, not necessarily more done by less staff.

      3yrs ongoing makes it very easy to submit a formal request for flexible arrangements, and denying that would be more grounds for the employer to be taken into dispute.

      • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:10
        +2

        If they are asking for more hours and not a change in responsibilities or tasks, then it'd be a very hard sell to Fair Work that the role is 'redundant'. The employer wants more work done, not necessarily more done by less staff.
        3yrs ongoing makes it very easy to submit a formal request for flexible arrangements, and denying that would be more grounds for the employer to be taken into dispute.

        Very accurate

      • gromit on 18/04/2024 - 16:46
        +1

        It wouldn't be a hard sell at all.They need a full time role instead of a part time one. The part time role has become redundant, this happens all the time. Whats more they would be able to show that they even offered the role to the part time employee but they declined it.

        • mooney on 19/04/2024 - 07:36

          Nah. No redundancy here. They’ve offered to job share. So OP keeps their job and a second person starts to deliver the additional hours.

          I can’t see how this would qualify for redundancy. Now OP might push back against job sharing, but they would be left with A) suck it up or B) quit.

  • AustriaBargain on 16/04/2024 - 13:40
    +1

    If you're more valuable full time than part time, then you are more valuable part time than quitting. Look for another job.

  • sumyungguy on 16/04/2024 - 13:52
    +3

    PBIs and not-for-profits usually spruik (empty) rhetoric about being committed to work/life balance and flexible working arrangements. If so you should be able to guilt them into retaining your current arrangements. If not, you're facing redundancy so make sure the payout is over-agreement and pitch for the longest goodbye possible. However if other P/T roles exist in the organisation, you could explore unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Ombudsman (but only if you reject the redundancy). HR people in my experience are not the sharpest of your management team so any reading this far may be duly offended and are welcome to downvote accordingly.

    • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:14

      PBIs and not-for-profits usually spruik (empty) rhetoric about being committed to work/life balance and flexible working arrangements.

      Correct, and they're the worst with flexible arrangements.
      They said if they were to allow WFH, they will be monitoring network and desktop activity on the laptops

      if so you should be able to guilt them into retaining your current arrangements

      How?

      However if other P/T roles exist in the organisation, you could explore unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Ombudsman

      i'm the only person PT, rest are either contract or FT

      • sumyungguy on 16/04/2024 - 21:19
        +2

        How? Raise that they're being inconsistent with their values, assuming the HR doublespeak is formally documented in your organisation.

  • Xyzzy on 16/04/2024 - 14:03
    +9

    Formally apply for Flexible Working Arrangements because you are a carer - or at least tell them you will be.

    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/flexibilit…

    They can turn down the request but only if they can show it would be too costly or impractical. But given you've been successfully working part-time it would be hard for them to show that.

    If they turn down the request you can lodge a dispute with Fair Work; which may discourage your employer from forcing the change.

    • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:15

      Formally apply for Flexible Working Arrangements because you are a carer - or at least tell them you will be.

      https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/flexibilit…

      Awesome find, thank you,

      • SlickMick on 17/04/2024 - 08:57
        +1

        I don't get why you need a flexible working arrangement. Your happy with your current arrangement aren't you?
        I would not accept the change to fulltime, and if they taken any action against you, take it to the ombudsman.

  • djsweet on 16/04/2024 - 14:49
    +7

    Find another job if you can. Employer sounds like a dick. Burn the place down on your way out if you want. Figuratively obviously. Lodge complaints, get Fair Work involved. Make it hard for them. Of course you'll have to leave, because who wants to work with a bunch of a-holes. But don't make it easy for them.

    • frostman on 16/04/2024 - 21:16
      +2

      they're being dorks for now reason.

      This isn't the first time, they thrown this at me, it's like a witch hunt to get me off PT

  • JIMB0 on 17/04/2024 - 07:42
    +3

    Name and shame.

  • kiitos on 17/04/2024 - 08:25

    Which hours do you need to have to care for your mum? Is it consistent each day/week? Were they aware of these restrictions when you joined them?

    • frostman on 17/04/2024 - 13:07
      -2

      Yes 100% they were, and I joined only for the purpose of PT work and that's it.
      They've floated the idea of fulltime literally 12 months into my role, im almost over 3 years now and it's been mentioned many many times, this time they sent a formal interview to demand it, they're hooked on this like flies to shit.

  • kraigg on 17/04/2024 - 09:33
    +3

    I've been in your same situation, also was working part-time for a non-profit organisation. I chose to work part-time because of health-related issues. Everyone I worked with knew my chronic health condition, I never hid it from anyone.

    I did this without any issues for almost a decade, until a new strategist was hired to the organisation, who decided to convert my role to full time. At first it was a gentle ask, then eventually it became a firm demand. I reiterated my position, citing my health-related reasons, but they said this wasn't good enough, and they demanded a medical certificate from my doctor to outline my outline. I provided this to them a few days later, but this still wasn't good enough for them. Even after harassing me to get a medical certificate, which I did, which clearly stated I couldn't work full time hours, they still wouldn't budge and said they're still converting my role to full time. I left my job that same day, luckily I knew someone who was hiring for a role and was able to start a new role that week.

    A lot of organisations will mention that they welcome diversity and people with different backgrounds and disabilities, but a lot of it is just feelgood PR guff.

    • pizzip on 17/04/2024 - 12:23
      +1

      How can a company demand a doc cert for this? If you signed a contract to work part time, that's a binding contract for those hours, the reasoning why you're working those hours is completely irrelevant. Good on you for not caving in and finding something better.

      • kraigg on 20/04/2024 - 09:34

        I didn't understand it at the time either, and I didn't have a union to make enquiries to. But I heard the pressure was coming from the CEO. After I provided the medical certificate, which I thought was a ruse to call my bluff, I knew there was nothing I could say or do to save my position. I moved on to a similar part-time position.

  • dtc on 17/04/2024 - 12:11
    +1

    For all those saying 'the part time position is being made redundant', that will be a hard sell. Redundancy is when the work done in the position is no longer required. If the work is still required but they need more resourcing, then this is clearly not a redundant position.

    The FWC may well say 'guess what, your solution is to hire another part time person' rather than make an existing person redundant and hire someone else full time.

    Being part time is not relevant to whether the position is redundant - its not the hours required, its whether the work needs to be done. If someone is asked to move from full time to part time because there was insufficient work for a full time position, then that can be a redundancy because the work is no longer needed and no one will take over the additional hours. But the reverse - when they want MORE work - doesnt apply (imagine if you worked a 40 hour week and the business said 'because you wont work 50 hours, your position is now redundant, because we need someone to work 50 hours!)

    Redundancy happens when an employer either:

    • doesn't need an employee’s job to be done by anyone, or
    • becomes insolvent or bankrupt.

    A dismissal is not a genuine redundancy if the employer:

    • still needs the employee’s job to be done by someone (for example, hires someone else to do the job)

    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/redundancy

    • pizzip on 17/04/2024 - 12:27
      +1

      I know most office and professional types don't like joining unions for whatever reason, but this is exactly why unions exist! Just because someone works a white collar job doesn't mean they're safe from being screwed over by companies. A union would tell this employer to kick rocks (and throw rocks back at them if needed), but since I'm guessing no-one at this org is in a union, they think they can get away with pulling sh!t like this.

  • Camelface on 17/04/2024 - 13:15

    Check if job sharing is an option, where two part times share the role. That's beneficial to the organisation as well. Could be a win-win-win situation.

    • frostman on 17/04/2024 - 13:18
      -3

      There is, and it's an option
      But i think it sets you up for redundancy after a few months they'll just make the other FT and you're out the door

      • Camelface on 21/04/2024 - 12:51

        How do you know that? The current arrangement is not going to work, so might be redundant anyway.

  • FlyingMiffy on 17/04/2024 - 18:00
    -1

    Another entitlement post. You cant be forced to work a job that you cant or dont want to do. Look for something else and move on. The business doesnt exist for the purpose of giving the OP a PT role…

  • richadam on 18/04/2024 - 10:21

    Could you perhaps see if the extra hours can be done working from home so that you're able to be at home and care for your mother as well as do the extra work required?

  • Baghern on 18/04/2024 - 13:10
    +1

    Any HR can respond regarding this

    Somewhat puzzled by all the responses saying its not a change in role, they require a full time position now, not part time. Redundancy has to be paid, thats it

  • EFC94 on 18/04/2024 - 15:25
    +2

    Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. You stated yourself they suggested you job share with someone else, yet you don't like that because it "feels like a demotion". Either they have more work than they think is reasonable to expect you to complete in xyz amount of time (sounds like a incredibly supportive workplace who looks out for your needs), or you're not very good at your job and they're trying to find a replacement (I'm inclined to think this isn't the case).

    OP you need to get off your high horse and just job share with someone, it's not going to kill you and will arguably make your life easier.

  • SoapyWooder on 18/04/2024 - 15:42

    If you're in Finance, can I cover for you?

  • Mumbles on 18/04/2024 - 19:50

    This case is kind of the unique situation. I'm more used to hearing questions in the other direction, "Can a permanent full time position be switched to casual/part-time?" or "Can an employer force me to accept lower pay?". The employer utilises the same mechanisms. ie. remove the current position and re-hire under a renegotiated position.

    OP already spoke with CEO and they said no, subsequently forced into a meeting with HR to proceed to push for full-time that's a strong indication from the organisation that "NO way can you stay part time".

    Following the logic above I'd interpret the organisation's actions as them giving notice they are going to remove the position (ie. fire the OP). I'd act as though the employer already gave notice. ie. Tell the NGO you can't do full time and start looking for a new job or alternative care for the family member.

    There might be stalling tactics available like unions or legal action but its unlikely to be successful. In the private sector CEO's and COO's are pretty heartless or moronic. Tiny NGO's might be slightly different and might be able to make exceptions.

    Perhaps a compromise solution is to enquire if you can work from home and submit your work outside of business hours?

  • cnrmlj on 19/04/2024 - 09:41

    In my experience and certainly not legal opinion ……….. seems like a redundancy to me. Job has changed and the job you have no longer exists, its now a full time job.

    You should get a redundancy payout rather than being sacked.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join