Redundancy consultation period - who represents the company?

[davek_964]

Last year, our business unit was for sale / closure if not sold - although the parent company would continue to exist. We had a consultation period because we were at risk - but the representatives of "the company" were actually our own on-site senior managers - who were also at risk.

This was not ideal (and there were many other things about the process which were not ideal!) - because they could never directly answer any of our questions. Anything we asked then had to be presented to "the company" by our local managers, and we would get an answer some time in the future.

We were sold, but are now for sale again. And I think it's going to be the same setup - that our senior site managers will be "the company" even though they will also lose their jobs if we're closed down.

This seems odd - our parent company does have UK presence so surely the employee reps should be talking to the parent company managers not out own managers who are also at risk? If anything - I'd expect our senior managers to be employee reps, not company reps!

The gov website isn't much help. It lists who the employee reps should be but doesn't really clarify the rules about the company reps.

[ChasW]

Although not in a sale/business transfer situation I have had to start the consultation process with staff not knowing whether I'd be next. I think it's following the correct process that's more important than who necessarily delivers the news.

[davek_964]

ChasW said:

Although not in a sale/business transfer situation I have had to start the consultation process with staff not knowing whether I'd be next. I think it's following the correct process that's more important than who necessarily delivers the news.

Well, last time they didn't do that either really - there definitely need to be some differences this time.

[edc]

The perceived quality of the process is only as good as the information and responsiveness of the decision-makers. If you have a Works Council or Union or just as good a good enough relationship with those key manager stakeholders who will be responsible for running the process then air these concerns to them. They can open up dialogue early, as a group of employees/representatives you can write down and submit questions or queries in advance of scheduled meetings which will give some time to turn things around. Local managers can learn from the last time round and prepare responses to typical and previously asked questions. If they need them validated by HQ then they can be sent through ahead of time. As usual it's all in the preparation.

[davek_964]

edc said:

The perceived quality of the process is only as good as the information and responsiveness of the decision-makers. If you have a Works Council or Union or just as good a good enough relationship with those key manager stakeholders who will be responsible for running the process then air these concerns to them. They can open up dialogue early, as a group of employees/representatives you can write down and submit questions or queries in advance of scheduled meetings which will give some time to turn things around. Local managers can learn from the last time round and prepare responses to typical and previously asked questions. If they need them validated by HQ then they can be sent through ahead of time. As usual it's all in the preparation.

Funnily enough, when we were notified our consultation process was going to start this time - we explicitly stated that there were some obvious questions that would be asked (the most obvious : What will the package be?), and that they should be able to prepare that information before the first meeting. We were categorically told : That is part of the consultation process.

So they would not even discuss what we would like prepared in advance.

[edc]

Then another way to do it is accept that they will work strictly to the process but for them to give some guidance on likely turnaround time for responses etc. At least this manages the expectation.

[davek_964]

edc said:

Then another way to do it is accept that they will work strictly to the process but for them to give some guidance on likely turnaround time for responses etc. At least this manages the expectation.

Yes, that's what we did the first time - although the expectations / agreed timelines were not met.

It's one of the reasons I raised this thread - because essentially, it seems the elected reps are only talking to middle-men and they (although un-elected) are the people who are really discussing the issues with the company. Last years consultation process was a bit of a joke in my opinion. Regardless of what we asked, what was agreed or what we challenged - the company pretty much did what they wanted.

I hope this years will be better.