Job Outsourced - Redundancy Query
Discussion
Evening all,
Just after a bit of advice from anyone to see if they can shed some light on a situation my wife is in.
She works for a large multinational company with main offices in India and over the last 12 - 18 months or so, her job role has been reduced by about half as the company has restructured.
However, both her and her colleagues have today noted that the remaining part of their roles are being advertised for a position in Mumbai, effectively removing her work and making the position redundant.
My first thought - rightly or wrongly - is that they are effectively advertising for her position without informing her or discussing this with her and that this is a breach of contract / employment law. The position is still available in the company but they have relocated it elsewhere. In essence, they are making her personally redundant and not the position.
I'm sure there is some way in which the company have arranged this in that UK employment law is not applicable here but i'm not sure and would like some clarification if possible.
Then again, knowing the way they have treated other employees over the years, it's entirely possible this is being done in full knowledge that it is breaching her contract and they don't care about the consequences.
Either way, it would be good to know your thoughts on this.
Thanks in advance.
Just after a bit of advice from anyone to see if they can shed some light on a situation my wife is in.
She works for a large multinational company with main offices in India and over the last 12 - 18 months or so, her job role has been reduced by about half as the company has restructured.
However, both her and her colleagues have today noted that the remaining part of their roles are being advertised for a position in Mumbai, effectively removing her work and making the position redundant.
My first thought - rightly or wrongly - is that they are effectively advertising for her position without informing her or discussing this with her and that this is a breach of contract / employment law. The position is still available in the company but they have relocated it elsewhere. In essence, they are making her personally redundant and not the position.
I'm sure there is some way in which the company have arranged this in that UK employment law is not applicable here but i'm not sure and would like some clarification if possible.
Then again, knowing the way they have treated other employees over the years, it's entirely possible this is being done in full knowledge that it is breaching her contract and they don't care about the consequences.
Either way, it would be good to know your thoughts on this.
Thanks in advance.
davepoth said:
Legally, they're fine.
https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights
Technically I suppose she could offer to move to India with the job but I guess that's not going to happen.
Sorry, just to clarify - https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights
Technically I suppose she could offer to move to India with the job but I guess that's not going to happen.
The place she works will still be operating and open, it's just that they have decided to centralise the job(s) that she does and that is going to be in India.
This is my point i suppose.
The work she is doing on site will still be getting done - just from India. The role / position is not redundant but the person effectively is.
I suspect that this is correct, even if morally it is not.
The second part of this however, is that they are advertising for "her" job - albeit in another country - prior to informing her of her position or the position of the company.
Nobody at this point knows if redundancy or alternative placements will be offered but the job is advertised on the company website.
Surely this is in breach of employment procedures and law?
The work she is doing on site will still be getting done - just from India. The role / position is not redundant but the person effectively is.
I suspect that this is correct, even if morally it is not.
The second part of this however, is that they are advertising for "her" job - albeit in another country - prior to informing her of her position or the position of the company.
Nobody at this point knows if redundancy or alternative placements will be offered but the job is advertised on the company website.
Surely this is in breach of employment procedures and law?
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.
Parts a) (i) and (ii), and Part b) (i) are not applicable due to the facts i noted before. Part b) (ii) is the point in order - however, she is a buyer for the company. The company will still be employing a buyer for the site so the requirements for someone to carry out the work has not ceased or diminished as the production / output for the company at the site on which she is employed has remained and is expected to remain constant and not diminish.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.
More learned people than me understand this stuff but it would appear that the only grey area in the company not being in breach of Employment Law is that there is another country / location involved.
edc said:
You need to be realistic. Unfortunately I've managed a few redundancy/outsource/relocation/consolidation call them what you want projects. The company will not be watching one walk out the door as the other walks in. In many cases you will both be in together. How else is knowledge and experience transfer supposed to happen?
I'd like to think i am realistic. It's been kind of put in front of me this evening but all i really wanted to get is a better idea of the ramifications of this decision / process. Incidentally, the company are sending over representatives next week to actually find out what my wife and her team do, before realising they have no idea of how to do it.
This is not a comment based on sour grapes - more based on the recent outsourcing of another team in the company which took place in last autumn and which was so successful, the team in the UK has been partially reassembled / taken out of the relocated roles in order to fix the mess caused in the last 4 months.
Breadvan72 said:
You may not think that the role is becoming redundant, but an Employment Tribunal would disagree with you, based on decades of redundancy law. At present, the employer needs X number of employees to do job Y at place Z. Soon, it will require fewer or no employees to do job Y at place Z. If you think it immoral for a business to make business decisions, Jeremy Corbyn is over there on the left, but, otherwise, welcome to the Capitalist economy.
The employer should conduct a fair procedure before dismissing employees with two years or more service, and if it does not it risks a finding of unfair dismissal, but a Tribunal won't look into the business decision that leads to the job or jobs becoming redundant.
I fully agree with what you are saying - other than the Jeremy Corbyn comment which was uncalled for and for which i seek a full apology (nobody needs to be compared to that individual) The employer should conduct a fair procedure before dismissing employees with two years or more service, and if it does not it risks a finding of unfair dismissal, but a Tribunal won't look into the business decision that leads to the job or jobs becoming redundant.
Now that i've had confirmed which i suspected, i suppose the only thing to consider is would the procedure be considered fair by advertising the post prior to notifying the employees.
Breadvan72 said:
You are misreading the Statute. You have to read every word and not just cherry pick to suit your preconception. The requirements of the employer for work of a particular kind IN THE PLACE where the employee works are ceasing. An employer is at liberty to arrange its business so that its needs are met from another country. That's not unlawful.
You can keep on asking the question, and maybe someone who hasn't a clue will come along and give you the answer you want, but the answer I have given you, although not what you want, happens to be the right answer. Sorry, but there it is.
No need to apologise - bit of cross posting here but as i said above, i agree with what you said earlier. I'm just trying to understand the why's and wherefores of it all. I'm trying my hardest not to appear as if i'm asking the same questions again and again and i certainly don't want someone to give me an answer for the sake of it. Being misinformed doesn't help anyone. You can keep on asking the question, and maybe someone who hasn't a clue will come along and give you the answer you want, but the answer I have given you, although not what you want, happens to be the right answer. Sorry, but there it is.
If i did have a preconception, i've been trying to avoid showing it - the clarification from myself was merely as i realised i hadn't given all of the pertinent information about and thought the additional stuff might affect your comments. Obviously they didn't but again, at least i know for certain.
Other than the above, thank you for your comments and help - i appreciate it.
edc said:
Sorry to say but I made a team of circa 6 buyers redundant and "moved" the jobs to Germany and India. That is global manufacturing for you. The company has simply chosen to carry out the buying work elsewhere. Unless you are going there then you have to move on and get a new job at some point.
Hey, it happens all the time. If you aren't involved in stuff like this (which i'm not) then it can be a bit of a minefield and forewarned is forearmed. Thanks for your help though, i appreciate it.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.
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.
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!
Just thought i'd offer an update on the situation as it stands.
My wife and her colleagues had a meeting with their department manager yesterday to discuss the itinerary for the forthcoming visit from their Indian colleague and a typed up copy of this was presented to them.
This matched, word for word, the advertisement for the job.
When pressed, the manager said that as far as she was told, it was to discuss some minor transfer of functions to India. When presented with the job advert and description, i'm told her reaction was rather stunned - she genuinely didn't know what to say or that it had been going on.
Further to this, she was later heard to say "a storm is brewing" to the site manager and i believe it is escalating from here.
To PurpleTurtle - she's already adopting that approach. Other departments who are desperate to keep their jobs, spilled the beans on everything and it did them no good. In another instance, representatives from India video'd the staff describing what they did and put a keystroke logger on the terminal used to demonstrate how they worked and what they did.
Needless to say, my wife is refusing to engage in that sort of shenanigans and will be strictly "Yes/No" when asked.
My wife and her colleagues had a meeting with their department manager yesterday to discuss the itinerary for the forthcoming visit from their Indian colleague and a typed up copy of this was presented to them.
This matched, word for word, the advertisement for the job.
When pressed, the manager said that as far as she was told, it was to discuss some minor transfer of functions to India. When presented with the job advert and description, i'm told her reaction was rather stunned - she genuinely didn't know what to say or that it had been going on.
Further to this, she was later heard to say "a storm is brewing" to the site manager and i believe it is escalating from here.
To PurpleTurtle - she's already adopting that approach. Other departments who are desperate to keep their jobs, spilled the beans on everything and it did them no good. In another instance, representatives from India video'd the staff describing what they did and put a keystroke logger on the terminal used to demonstrate how they worked and what they did.
Needless to say, my wife is refusing to engage in that sort of shenanigans and will be strictly "Yes/No" when asked.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff