Your 合法的な questions answered by Fenton Bresler

By This Is Money
Updated: 00:00 BST, 24 May 2001

?

Every week, lawyer and 合法的な 専門家 Fenton Bresler looks at a 選択 of your 合法的な 頭痛s - and points you in the 権利 direction. To 接触する the online lawyer, email him at This I s Money.

I am 令状ing to ask about 現在の redundancy 政策. I am sure that you are aware that 地元の 政府 is in the 過程 of 委任する／代表ing money which they have 以前 治めるd 支援する into schools. I am a peripatetic teacher and the service that I work for is 委任する／代表d. This may lead to redundancy. The 会議 which I work for is considering using a 'Last in, first out' 政策 when 決定するing who should be made redundant. I started my 職業 in January 2000 and am the newest 新採用する. Is this 政策 普及した and is it 合法的な? I had to move from a 安全な・保証する 職業 in London to Dorset to （問題を）取り上げる this 地位，任命する. The move has entailed not only the expense of relocating but I also had to buy a house with a mortgage. I am not a union member and have to fight my own 戦う／戦いs, unaided.

Fenton Bresler replies: 'Last in, first out' is often the basis of redundancies where one is （人命などを）奪う，主張するing statutory redundancy 支払う／賃金 under the 1996 雇用 権利s 行為／法令／行動する. But you must have been at least two years in the 職業 to qualify - so you could not （人命などを）奪う，主張する anyway, having started work only 18 months ago. Your （人命などを）奪う，主張する would be 限られた／立憲的な to the 支払い（額）s, if any, 始める，決める out in your 契約 of 雇用.

But since you have been in the 職業 for more than a year, you could （人命などを）奪う，主張する 補償（金） for 不公平な 解雇／（訴訟の）却下 if a 地元の 雇用 法廷 受託するd that you had been '不公平に' selected for redundancy. On that basis, it would not be enough for you 単に to be redundant. Your 雇用者 would have to 証明する that he was fair in selecting you to be made redundant.

A simple 政策 of 'Last in, first out' is not always enough. There must be a comparative, 客観的な 分析 of all 関連した （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） before a 決定／判定勝ち（する） is made. An 雇用者 must also, as a general 支配する, 協議する with his 全労働人口 and consider whether other 選択s are 利用できる, such as redeployment どこかよそで within the organisation. Not doing so will usually make the 解雇／（訴訟の）却下 不公平な. Many 専門家s believe that 欠如（する） of 協議 is the si ngle greatest source of trouble in this area. Where 20 or more 従業員s are 関心d, there is a 始める，決める 時刻表／予定表. An 雇用者 should 協議する with his 全労働人口 or their 代表者／国会議員s at least 30 days before redundancies are 提案するd to 施行される. With 100 or more 従業員s, the period is 90 days.

As to 補償（金） for what may sadly 証明する an unnecessary 移転, that could be 含むd in an 不公平な 解雇／（訴訟の）却下 award, if successful. If not, your only hope would depend on any 誤った 代表s or unfulfilled 約束s made to 説得する you to take the 職業 and move from London in the first place. You really should 協議する a 法律 centre or 国民's advice bureau as soon as possible and tell them all the facts: their 演説（する）／住所s will be in your 地元の phone 調書をとる／予約する.

+++

I know that if you are 指名するd in a will neither you nor your spouse can be a 証言，証人／目撃する. But are there any other circumstances in which this 適用するs?

Fenton Bresler replies: The basic 原則 is that no one left anything in a will should be a 証言，証人／目撃する, neither should their husband or wife. The will remains perfectly valid - but the 遺産／遺物 will be 無効の and 落ちる into what is called the 'residuary 広い地所' and be taken by the person 指名するd as 相続するing it in the will. 'Residuary 広い地所' means all the 広い地所 not 特に given to anyone else. But that is not all.

Anyone 指名するd as executor should also not be a 証言，証人／目撃する. If they are, the will is valid and so is the 任命 as executor - but any 遺産／遺物 to that person is 無効の and they cannot （人命などを）奪う，主張する a 料金 or their expenses, even though 許すd to do so by the will. The idea behind all this is that no one 証言，証人／目撃するing a will should have 直接／まっすぐに or 間接に any 財政上の 利益／興味 in what it says. This dates 支援する to the Wills 行為／法令／行動する of 1837 and is ーするつもりであるd to 妨げる fraudulent wills. やめる sensible, you may think.