Job Outsourced - Redundancy Query
Discussion
So there is what would happen in an ideal world and then there is the real world, with a crappy employer.
Ideally the company would communicate what is happening and why. And they would offer the positions and spell out redundancy terms at the same moment.
Your wife's employer has not done it this way, and that sucks.
Legally however they haven't done anything wrong....yet.
In an large consultation/redundancy process, there is supposed to be scope for employees to suggest alternatives to major redundancies, and again they should put employees at risk on notice, or offer a formal consultation process, or prove that they have consider existing employeses for alternative roles.
They may have breached this by advertising the roles, without informing and consulting first. Keep a copy of the advert, and any details. If this proves to be a large scale redundancy then your wife may have an opportunity to challenge.
The decision is the companies, but the process in the UK must be followed carefully.
I very much hate to disagree with BV in matters of employment law, but I am confident he will agree that a process that complies with UK law must be followed, and I am certain that it does not allow for decisions to be made before a consultation process has taken place.
BV, am I wrong ?
Gargamel said:
They may have breached this by advertising the roles, without informing and consulting first. Keep a copy of the advert, and any details. If this proves to be a large scale redundancy then your wife may have an opportunity to challenge.
The decision is the companies, but the process in the UK must be followed carefully.
I think half of the problem that i have is that historically, the company have screwed up so many redundancies / dismissals / grievances that i'm expecting them to have "cocked up" this time. Naturally, this would be the one they comply fully with UK law...The decision is the companies, but the process in the UK must be followed carefully.
As it's invariably in compliance with UK Employment Law (as noted above) the only thing we can look at it is the procedural issues and if they do not comply.
As a clarification, there may only be redundancies for less than 5 people in the department so it's not large scale redundancy by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess things just have to pan out and as my wife has said on countless occasions - "it is what it is".
BTW - thanks for your input on this.
A very small redundancy like that means that there's no minimum collective consultation period - just that an individual consultation is carried out.
The way I see this panning out is that it will take a few weeks to find someone for the role, and then a month or two to train them up, plus your wife's notice period after that which may be paid in lieu, plus the redundancy money. I'd guess she'll be paid up to somewhere around the end of April.
Think of it as a positive that you've become aware a bit more in advance than you otherwise would have been; get personal finances in order while you still have the money, prep the CV, and start sending it out to agencies.
The way I see this panning out is that it will take a few weeks to find someone for the role, and then a month or two to train them up, plus your wife's notice period after that which may be paid in lieu, plus the redundancy money. I'd guess she'll be paid up to somewhere around the end of April.
Think of it as a positive that you've become aware a bit more in advance than you otherwise would have been; get personal finances in order while you still have the money, prep the CV, and start sending it out to agencies.
Breadvan72 said:
Because Parliament says so:
Employment Rights Act 1996
139 Redundancy.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—
(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—
(i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or
(ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.
And I have been to so many lectures on employment law where we have been told "it is not the person who is being made redundant, it is the role". The law obviously contradicts that statement. The role (i.e. the task) still needs to be carried out by someone else).Employment Rights Act 1996
139 Redundancy.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—
(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—
(i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or
(ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.
So, if a person is made redundant but immediately replaced by another person in the UK, that means the redundancy was incorrect.
On the other hand, if a person is made redundant but immediately replaced by another person who is based in India the redundancy was correct.
I don't see a contradiction. A person may be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the role which that person performed is a redundant role.
As for the procedure, as this is not a mass redundancy, the employer has not acted unlawfully by advertising for the replacement workers to work in India before any individual consultation with the affected UK employees. This is because the business decision to get the work done from India is not up for debate. What the employer must do, however, is act fairly in considering which employees to select for redundancy (this can sometimes involve "bumping" an employee whose role is not redundant to make way for another employee whose role is redundant). The employee must carry out a fair individual consultation, and consider whether there are any UK roles that can be offered to the affected employees.
As for the procedure, as this is not a mass redundancy, the employer has not acted unlawfully by advertising for the replacement workers to work in India before any individual consultation with the affected UK employees. This is because the business decision to get the work done from India is not up for debate. What the employer must do, however, is act fairly in considering which employees to select for redundancy (this can sometimes involve "bumping" an employee whose role is not redundant to make way for another employee whose role is redundant). The employee must carry out a fair individual consultation, and consider whether there are any UK roles that can be offered to the affected employees.
Breadvan72 said:
I don't see a contradiction. A person may be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the role which that person performed is a redundant role.
What do you mean by "role". I would interpret it to mean a particular task or series of tasks that the business or organisation needs to be performed in order to carry out whatever it does, If that task or series of tasks continues to be required but is carried on by another person, surely the "role" has not ceased to exist.To me, the "role" is independent of the person carrying it out.
Or is your (or the law's) definition of "role" something different.
In statutory interpretation, you must read all of the words. Don't miss out the words that don't suit your position.
In this instance, have a look at the words "in the place where".
The law on this subject is clear and has been clear for decades. Contrary to what some amateur lawyers may suppose, the law isn't all about pedantic quibbles and making nice distinctions. The statutory definition of redundancy is quoted above, and it's not a complex definition. Complexities can arise on particular facts, but identifying a redundancy situation (that is a colloquial term, not a statutory term) is usually not all that difficult, and there is plainly one on the facts stated by the OP.
In this instance, have a look at the words "in the place where".
The law on this subject is clear and has been clear for decades. Contrary to what some amateur lawyers may suppose, the law isn't all about pedantic quibbles and making nice distinctions. The statutory definition of redundancy is quoted above, and it's not a complex definition. Complexities can arise on particular facts, but identifying a redundancy situation (that is a colloquial term, not a statutory term) is usually not all that difficult, and there is plainly one on the facts stated by the OP.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 27th January 08:38
Breadvan72 said:
Eric, I suggest that you just read the words of the statute. This stuff really isn't that hard. There is no need to add glosses or extra layers of definition to what is a very simple rule.
I am having a conversation. I asked a question. I would like you to answer it.Telling people to go off and read things for themselves is a bit rude. I try not to speak in such terms when people ask me a technical question.
I have decided there are two types of "professionals" on PH - those who are polite and answer questions and those who are dismissive.
Breadvan72 said:
I don't see a contradiction. A person may be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the role which that person performed is a redundant role.
As for the procedure, as this is not a mass redundancy, the employer has not acted unlawfully by advertising for the replacement workers to work in India before any individual consultation with the affected UK employees. This is because the business decision to get the work done from India is not up for debate. What the employer must do, however, is act fairly in considering which employees to select for redundancy (this can sometimes involve "bumping" an employee whose role is not redundant to make way for another employee whose role is redundant). The employee must carry out a fair individual consultation, and consider whether there are any UK roles that can be offered to the affected employees.
And this is the final part of the information i was hoping i would get from yourself and other posters on this forum.As for the procedure, as this is not a mass redundancy, the employer has not acted unlawfully by advertising for the replacement workers to work in India before any individual consultation with the affected UK employees. This is because the business decision to get the work done from India is not up for debate. What the employer must do, however, is act fairly in considering which employees to select for redundancy (this can sometimes involve "bumping" an employee whose role is not redundant to make way for another employee whose role is redundant). The employee must carry out a fair individual consultation, and consider whether there are any UK roles that can be offered to the affected employees.
After having a good nights sleep on the matter, i realise that the only point whereupon i initially thought there might have been an issue was the advertising abroad prior to notifying staff in this country.Obviously, there is not under the law.
In essence it's two separate issues at hand. The company have a role they need filing in India and are advertising it. The company has no need for a role in the country and will be outsourcing to India.
As i said last night, it is what it is. At least this way, as mentioned by another poster, we have some semblance of advance notice and can start to plan for getting out if the need arises.
Once again though, thanks for your input on this matter, it has been incredibly helpful.
Eric Mc said:
So the role is dependent on task AND location?
i.e a person coating a chocolate biscuit in Leeds is a different role to a person coating the same type of chocolate biscuit for the same company in Warsaw.
PS - "Amateur lawyers" are just as annoying as "amateur accountants"
Woah.....hang on a second!i.e a person coating a chocolate biscuit in Leeds is a different role to a person coating the same type of chocolate biscuit for the same company in Warsaw.
PS - "Amateur lawyers" are just as annoying as "amateur accountants"
Why would you coat a chocolate biscuit? And coat it with what? It doesn't bear thinking about!!
Breadvan72 said:
A conversation is voluntary, Eric. You seem to delight in hair splitting and angel pin dancing. I am sorry, but I don't. The words of the statute are plain and don't need paraphrasing.
Is that what you say to your clients?If I was asked to explain something by a client I wouldn't dismiss them by telling them "Read the legislation, why don't you".
Countdown said:
Eric Mc said:
So the role is dependent on task AND location?
i.e a person coating a chocolate biscuit in Leeds is a different role to a person coating the same type of chocolate biscuit for the same company in Warsaw.
PS - "Amateur lawyers" are just as annoying as "amateur accountants"
Woah.....hang on a second!i.e a person coating a chocolate biscuit in Leeds is a different role to a person coating the same type of chocolate biscuit for the same company in Warsaw.
PS - "Amateur lawyers" are just as annoying as "amateur accountants"
Why would you coat a chocolate biscuit? And coat it with what? It doesn't bear thinking about!!
Eric, you aren't my client, I am very glad to say. I have explained the relevant principles. The OP understands my explanation. You, with all your mighty accountancy training, claim not to understand it. You seem to delight in being wilfully obtuse. If you want spoon feeding, ask your Nanny.
Eric Mc said:
If I was asked to explain something by a client I wouldn't dismiss them by telling them "Read the legislation, why don't you".
Pulling out the bits and gluing them together:139 Redundancy.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—
(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—
(ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.
So - it's a redundancy situation because the work the employee was doing is no longer going to be carried out at the employee's location.
"Role" is HR speak for a job in my experience. So, you have three people doing the same job / role - that of a buyer, say. You may find that for one reason or another you either only need one buyer role now, or you still need three but the needs of the business mean the office these buyer roles are associated with changes.
Making the role rather than the person redundant means just that - you can't say at the start "John and Fred are being made redundant as we only need one buyer now. Peter, that's going to be you." Instead you say "We're losing two buyer roles, and John, Fred and Peter are all at risk of losing their jobs as they all work in the impacted area.". Then HR and management do a bit of scoring based on John, Fred and Peter's performance, experience, etc. and work out in an unbiased way who out of the three people they wish to retain for the one remaining buyer role. That may be Peter still, but they've got to show it was fair.
That's all by the by in this instance - instead they've said that the UK based roles will be done in the Indian office starting from date X, and as a result the UK based roles are redundant.
Had a not-dissimilar situation personally, about a year ago. Huge multi-national corporation, the bi-annual restructure resulted in a new man at the top of our particular tree, who decreed that he wanted all his team to be resident in mainland Europe (although last time I checked, the UK, where I live, was of course in Europe, albeit the other side of a small stream). After a little jiggery-pokery on team structure, I was interviewed for a role which encompassed my then-current position, but having advised that whilst I was happy to travel around Europe (as I had been doing, in the same role, for about 6 years), I wasn't about to move to the fatherland, I was offered a settlement agreement. On the upside, I have another job now in which I am approximately 1000 times more content, and that's despite a 40% drop in overall package (if the new place could up that, I'd be nearly 2000 times happier 
). The moral is, sure it's scary being lobbed out, but good things can and often do come of it.
). The moral is, sure it's scary being lobbed out, but good things can and often do come of it.CAPP0 said:
Had a not-dissimilar situation personally, about a year ago. Huge multi-national corporation, the bi-annual restructure resulted in a new man at the top of our particular tree, who decreed that he wanted all his team to be resident in mainland Europe (although last time I checked, the UK, where I live, was of course in Europe, albeit the other side of a small stream). After a little jiggery-pokery on team structure, I was interviewed for a role which encompassed my then-current position, but having advised that whilst I was happy to travel around Europe (as I had been doing, in the same role, for about 6 years), I wasn't about to move to the fatherland, I was offered a settlement agreement. On the upside, I have another job now in which I am approximately 1000 times more content, and that's despite a 40% drop in overall package (if the new place could up that, I'd be nearly 2000 times happier ). The moral is, sure it's scary being lobbed out, but good things can and often do come of it.
To be honest, you've hit the nail on the head there. I reminded my wife earlier that last year she wasn't sleeping due to worrying about having to go to work (stress, management stupidity, class of personalities, that sort of thing) to now not sleeping because she might not be going! ). The moral is, sure it's scary being lobbed out, but good things can and often do come of it.She's been in a meeting this morning so we'll see soon enough what the situation is and how soon she needs to get her CV out!
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff