Agism unfair dismissal at work!

[BigAlinEmbra]

M400 NBL said:

BigAlinEmbra said:

The term junior/senior sounds like it's getting dangerously close to age discrimination for my liking.
Offer to take one of the more senior positions and don't resign.

This usually relates to the job/responsibilites and not age. A 50 year old can be a junior.

I agree with you in theory. I wonder how many 50 year old juniors he works alongside.
If there are older people with similar relevant experience in the more senior positions, but our man isn't being given that opportunity on the grounds of age rather than experience, then it's discrimination.

Final point to OP is to keep your nose clean for the time being. No sneaky surfing PH during the day for example. If they want you out, they'll be hunting for a reason...

[srebbe64]

evo801 said:

apparently they have sent a letter out to me today so i will let you all know what it reads.

Please do. If everything you've said is true, I'll be astonished if they put it in writing!

In the meantime, I would suggest that you put everything in writing and send a letter to them outlining your understanding of what they've said and done.

Lastly, can you think of anything which you've said or done to cheese of upper management?

[evo801]

NEWS! Received a letter.

It reads;

Dear Daniel,

Notice

"Further to our meeting on Friday, """,2008, i am writing to confirm that the company has no option but to serve you with your on months notice,
as detailed in your terms and conditions of employment. This is due to the department requiring more Senior Interior Architects due to the nature and
workload of current and foreseeable projects."

"Go on to state leaving details....all holiday will be paid for... flexible with job interviews....blah blah etc etc"

A friend mentioned visiting the 'Citizens Advice Bureau'?

Let me know your thoughts.

Edited by evo801 on Thursday 14th August 19:59

[condor]

The CAB will advise you to put in a grievance letter. They'll give you a pro-forma type letter to use, which you then use as an introductory paragraph before expanding on your grievance.

Similar to

I am writing to tell you that I wish to raise a grievance. I believe that I am an employee and that the Employment Act 2002 ( Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 apply. If you do not agree that I am an employee or believe that the regulations do not apply, please confirm this in writing immediately.

My grievance is about .....

I understand that you will arrange a meeting with me to discuss these points. I am entitled, if I wish, to be accompanied by another work colleague or my trade union representative. Please reply within 14 days of the date of this letter.


The grievance letter is important as your employers are obliged to act on it.
If thinking about persuing your case in an employment tribunal , the tribunal will expect you to have raised a grievance first.

[plasticpig]

You have worked there for 2 years so they do not have to make any redundancy payment. Are you on a rolling contract or a proper employment contract? Have a look here as this gives some useful basic information.

[evo801]

I am on a proper full time contract.

They say they are requiring more senior interior architects yet they employ an interior architect of no senior role.

[pgilc1]

evo801 said:

I am on a proper full time contract.

They say they are requiring more senior interior architects yet they employ an interior architect of no senior role.

This isnt agism and they've done their homework. If the team is of a specific size, they want to make a junior architect redundant (ie, you), because the team needs another senior architect (ie, not you).

Age has nothing to do with it.

[srebbe64]

pgilc1 said:

evo801 said:

I am on a proper full time contract.

They say they are requiring more senior interior architects yet they employ an interior architect of no senior role.

This isnt agism and they've done their homework. If the team is of a specific size, they want to make a junior architect redundant (ie, you), because the team needs another senior architect (ie, not you).

Age has nothing to do with it.

Agreed. They're using the term 'senior' not in terms of age but experience, I think.

[BigAlinEmbra]

srebbe64 said:

pgilc1 said:

evo801 said:

I am on a proper full time contract.

They say they are requiring more senior interior architects yet they employ an interior architect of no senior role.

This isnt agism and they've done their homework. If the team is of a specific size, they want to make a junior architect redundant (ie, you), because the team needs another senior architect (ie, not you).

Age has nothing to do with it.

Agreed. They're using the term 'senior' not in terms of age but experience, I think.

Impossible to say from the information we have. If the person appointed to the senior post is older but doesn't have significantly more experience or qualifications, what's the reason for it?

[M400 NBL]

I'd have thought if you'd managed to satisfy them during your probationary period, that they can't just change their minds or move the goal posts.

Have they mentioned the word redundancy in the letter? And the term senior and junior could be used just as an excuse. What's to prevent any company that wants rid of an employee saying that they require someone more senior?

[Deva Link]

evo801 said:

2 colleagues from HR sat me in a meeting room and asked me to hand in my notice. Their excuse was that they need to employ more seniors and that in a years time, i would be welcomed back to the company with open arms.


We are moving new offices and currently have 80 employed, the new office will house 140 easily so it cannot be because they do not have room for me.

This all seems extemely odd, they've got 80 people and moving to make space for up to 140 and they would welcome you back in a years time - it's hard to imagine that, in the great scheme of things, a years salary and costs for a young employee would be a huge deal to the firm, especially if you're making such a valuable contribution.

You've spoke about HR - what's your line manager had to say about this?

[pgilc1]

BigAlinEmbra said:

srebbe64 said:

pgilc1 said:

evo801 said:

I am on a proper full time contract.

They say they are requiring more senior interior architects yet they employ an interior architect of no senior role.

This isnt agism and they've done their homework. If the team is of a specific size, they want to make a junior architect redundant (ie, you), because the team needs another senior architect (ie, not you).

Age has nothing to do with it.

Agreed. They're using the term 'senior' not in terms of age but experience, I think.

Impossible to say from the information we have. If the person appointed to the senior post is older but doesn't have significantly more experience or qualifications, what's the reason for it?

By default, senior in this context means 'more experienced' and 'more responsibility'.

You second question is irrelevant as thats not what the company have done.

[edc]

From the info in the thread then potential dismissal by redudancy looks justified. Procedurally though they need some new HR people

I would write to them to find out what payments they are prepared to make to you. You need to look at your employee handbook/contract etc to understand whether thay have followed the company's own procedures. Otherwise it might be worth raising a formal grievance that the statutory dismissal procedures have not been applied correctly. Unfair dismissal requires only 12 months service ...

[StevieBee]

The terminology of the reasoning beggars belief but the rationale is perhaps, fair. If the company is winning bigger contracts or those that require a higher level of skill or experience then one can understand why you might be surplus to requirement.

My advice would be to suck it up – as hard as it may seem! Best not to burn bridges and lugging around the history of tribunals and the like does not make for a “must-have-employee” CV!! I’d suggest that references are more important for you and that you won’t get from them if you start waving litigation in the air.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

Good luck.

[Vesuvius 996]

StevieBee said:

The terminology of the reasoning beggars belief but the rationale is perhaps, fair. If the company is winning bigger contracts or those that require a higher level of skill or experience then one can understand why you might be surplus to requirement.

My advice would be to suck it up – as hard as it may seem! Best not to burn bridges and lugging around the history of tribunals and the like does not make for a “must-have-employee” CV!! I’d suggest that references are more important for you and that you won’t get from them if you start waving litigation in the air.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

Good luck.

I agree.

If they're wanting you to go, organise a deal where you can stay until you find somethign else, and they give you an amzing reference.

Good luck.

[POORCARDEALER]

As I understand it, they make you "at risk" of redundancy first, then there should be a period of consultation, where they (the company) try and accomodate you.


If companies dont floow the rules to the letter they are leaving themselves wide open.........go see an employment specialist lawyer, will be a well spent hour i would think

[groomi]

It sounds to me like they simply need more experienced staff who can take on more responsibilty. The terms used are commomplace when referring to inexperienced (junior) and experienced (senior) staff. Whether they have followed the letter of the law is perhaps up for debate, but the reasoning sounds simple and believable for any SME.

I'd chalk it up to experience (see what I did there) and make it clear that you would like the opportunity to further your career with the company if they are willing to take the plunge offer you more responsibilty.

Keep it amicable and they'll be helpful with you finding another job, play dirty and life is about to get a whole lot tougher...

[evo801]

I think what everyone has mentioned sounds fair, Groomi summed it up completely.
You know..i have long term plans for the future and i think it was a matter of frustration.

There a great company and have offered me a job in a years time which although i will not come back
it's nice to know.
Personally i want to have a good reference so i don't want to go rattling cages.

I have requested a further meeting with the relevant members of staff to provide a review of
my work so i am able to learn and improve in my future roles.

Arguing to try and stay seems petty.
I am continuing to pursue my early starts, late finishes and working to my full ability.
Having too much planned for the future, i shouldn't make an issue about the past

What ever HR say, it's going to sound reasonable whether or not it is the truth.
There is no nice way of letting someone go..

Thanks all for your advice and help, really appreciate it

[condor]

Thanks for the update
BUT you really should go with a grievance procedure.

I already did one last year ( see my post above with info from CAB which I used). My then senior manager was transferred to another position ( the someone responsible for the grievance seems to move to a different position).
My new manager seemed to treat with me with kid gloves and gave me loads of help
HR depts hate grievance procedures....so do any others for that matter.

[odyssey2200]

Evo801

Seek proper advice ACAS or Solicitor

While they are walking a VERY fine line I think it may just be legal for them to make you redudant PROVIDED thatthey follow ALL the requirements. Period of consultation etc

The asking you to resign was a deff

Make sure you get decent legal advise and ask yourself this..

In the future do you want to work for a compantythat rewards your loyalty, enthusiasm and hard work in this way?