I think TR has this right. Redunancy is redunancy wether voluntary or not. It is the position that is being made reduntant, not the person. Hence it would be illegal to hire any more staff with the same job description and title.
To stop companies using fake redundancies as a way of avoiding unfair dismissal claims somebody subject to compulsory redundancy can claim unfair dismissal if the post is filled too quickly. In voluntary redundancy scenarios those rules don't come into play. As long as it is a truly voluntary agreement the employee will have agreed to leave and therefore waive any right to claim unfair dismissal. NATS can quite legally move people into the holes created and has made no secret of the fact that it will do so if that is the most effective way of making the savings.
The facts are that there is a downturn in traffic at the moment - if (supposition), a load of ATCOs who were 2 or 3 years from normal retirement volunteered to go early, it would not really impact on the company.
We were told that a business case will have to be completed for every person that goes. Will those only 2 or 3 years away from retirement make enough saving to justify the cost ? And of course they won't impact at all on CP3 costs which according to PB's e-mail is one of the drivers for this.