John’s Case John is the owner of a large construction company in Nicosia. Due to the lack of projects in the last two months, he wishes to reduce his costs, to be more competitive in the construction market. John has to know that the law does not support redundancy initiated to reduce costs. It appears that he wants to reduce the number of employees for cost-saving. It can be seen from the way he has outlined his reason for redundancy. The law allows redundancy to be used when there is a reduced volume of work. John should frame his reason based on the reduced number of projects. The reason can be classified under economic conditions. The burden of proof lies with the employer. John will need to show that the two-month decline in the number of projects is not a cyclical event. A cyclical business downturn is not a legal ground for dismissing employees. Two months is a short period to prove that the quantity of work will remain reduced. The trade unions will require more time to verify that the reduction is not a business cycle. John must provide statistics that support his redundancy claim. If there were similar reductions in the past that the firm recovered from without reducing employees, it may work against the planned redundancy. If there was a similar reduction in the past, he must show that he acted in a similar manner. The time the firm took to recover from the decline in the quantity of work may function as proof of the need to reduce workers based on redundancy. The current reduction should have an irregular pattern to avoid consideration of a cyclical reduction. He will need to notify the parties concerned with employment. John will need to notify the trade unions. It should be two months prior to the effective date of the redundancy layoffs. Being a collective redundancy, he will need to notify the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance at least thirty days before the redundancy becomes effective (Reitz, 2007). A fine of £2000 may be charged for carrying out the redundancy process before a month ends after the notification. John will also need to notify employees, according to the number of years the employees have worked with the firm. He will still need to incur the cost of wages during the notification period. A fine of £500 will be charged for failing to notify the employees on time. In case he wants to start the reduction within a short period, he can exercise payment in lieu of notice. He can make payments to the employees that legally cover the required weeks of notification. He may dismiss them immediately after the other two notification requirements have been met. The employees will need to have been continuously working for 104 weeks in his firm to qualify for compensation from the Redundancy Fund. The unions may need him to make ex gratia payments to the employees unless he is in a bad financial condition. If he can prove his redundancy claims, he will not be compelled to make any payment. The employees will be paid from the Redundancy Fund (Reitz, 2007). The first task will be to prove that the reduction meets the redundancy requirement. In Case No. 1/2008, the case of Kyriakoulla Polycarpous versus Frigg Restaurant Ltd. and the Redundancy Fund, the judge did not find any proof of red