Redundancy ... or is it ?

[Hungrymc]

Hi all, a friend of mine has received a written notice that they are at risk of redundancy due to some changes in working practice. It transpires that some of the role will stop, and then a portion of the role will be moved to a different department (Sitting about 3 desks away) The people who will be receiving the work haven’t been included in any review, it is just a local decision to take this role and distribute across other staff - no consultation, no selection criteria, no one else in a pool being considered..... does that sound fair and legitimate?

To complicate matters further, the explanation of the redundancy overlooked more than half of the actual role / function that my friend completes, HR only acknowledged this during the first consultation (and so they can not claim these responsibilities formed part of an informed decision on eliminating the role, because they didn’t even know the full job spec).

It shouts to me that this is a situation where an individual has been selected and not legitimately the role (as they didn’t understand it and didn’t consider others in a similar pool).

Any guidance / advice would be very welcome,

[Jasandjules]

A lot depends on what your friend intends to do.

[Hungrymc]

I think the strong preference is to stay in the business (about 20 years of service)

[Jasandjules]

Hungrymc said:

I think the strong preference is to stay in the business (about 20 years of service)

Are there any suitable alternative roles available for him even including some retraining?

[Hungrymc]

Jasandjules said:

Are there any suitable alternative roles available for him even including some retraining?

There are roles that have been filled with new external hires over the last month or two which would have been a simple transfer.

[eliot]

Sounds like their time is up. Have they been set and measured against objectives regularly over the last 6-12 months?

[Hungrymc]

eliot said:

Sounds like their time is up. Have they been set and measured against objectives regularly over the last 6-12 months?

Over the last several years. Always been graded as meeting all requirements (with some higher results in areas). There is no performance management history at all.

Their time may well be up, but there is an obligation on the company to do things correctly and legally, I’m not sure they have thus far.

[Hungrymc]

That’s probably the most sensible approach Brickwall. I think the worry he has is having not looked for work for so long he’s a bit nervous about having to go out and find something. There is also a bit of irritation / anger at how this has been done. But at the end of the day I guess it’s prudent to focus on the best possible outcome which may not be as simple as being in the right and managing to stop this.

I guess if they continue to pursue this as a statutory redundancy then he may need some proper legal advice on how valid his complaint is and how legitimate the redundancy is.

[aka_kerrly]

If they've been there for 20 years I suspect they have obtained a fair number of incremental pay rises which now make them expensive relative to their job hence make them redundant an take on two new folk who probably earn a big chunk less.

I saw this happen in an admin department where a number of 30 somethings who'd done 10 years of exactly the same job without really taking any additional roles or developing new skills had benefited from 3-10% annual pay rises (pre resssion) so best way to cut cost was bin them off an recruit teens/early 20s an pay then 5-10k a year less.

[Hungrymc]

I think you’re right to an extent aka. But off course that isn’t he reason given.

Things have to be done correctly of course and the reasons given need to be accurate and stand some scrutiny which I really thing is not the case here. It also may be questionable to make a role redundant to simply replace it with cheaper? Even redistributing amongst similar colleagues is dodgy if there isn’t sound logic as to why the similar colleagues were not in the pool and a practical and logical selection criteria followed?

[eliot]

aka_kerrly said:

If they've been there for 20 years I suspect they have obtained a fair number of incremental pay rises which now make them expensive relative to their job hence make them redundant an take on two new folk who probably earn a big chunk less.

I saw this happen in an admin department where a number of 30 somethings who'd done 10 years of exactly the same job without really taking any additional roles or developing new skills had benefited from 3-10% annual pay rises (pre resssion) so best way to cut cost was bin them off an recruit teens/early 20s an pay then 5-10k a year less.

Few private sector non union run places give automatic pay rises - i was on the same salary for about 5+ years until I got a raise through role change

[Jasandjules]

Hungrymc said:

Jasandjules said:

Are there any suitable alternative roles available for him even including some retraining?

There are roles that have been filled with new external hires over the last month or two which would have been a simple transfer.

I see. Then they don't want him there for whatever reason.

I might be inclined to seek to negotiate an enhanced redundancy package noting their errors and failures etc to include of course an agreed reference.

[The3rdDukeofB]

I would firstly check that your friend has legal cover on their home insurance - it costs peanuts, and will give qualified advice first, and will engage solicitors and legal help / action should it be ultimately necessary.
(it cost me circa £12 a year, and they spent circa £6k, helping me get 6 times that in a payout)

I would also tell your friend to start to write a journal, going back as far as they can to remember the sequence and steps that have happened to date, promises, omissions, messages, and log them going forward to call upon.

Preparation - whether for a negotiation or worse case legal action, is key.

[Hungrymc]

Apparently they do have legal cover from home insurance and they are making contact now, thanks for that suggestion.

I don’t have legal cover but will be adding it !

Thank you all for the advise thus far, anything further appreciated.

[Jasandjules]

I would, if possible, obtain a different legal representative than the panel firm in the event the claim is covered. I say this for a number of reasons which it is not helpful to go into on a public forum however it is of course easier to do so.

[The3rdDukeofB]

to echo that and expand on my own - I was recommended a Barrister (direct action as https://www.st-philips.com/direct-access/) that I took one or two self paid for discussions.
This was in addition to the legal advice offered by the Insurance Co.
Once it gets to a point of st hitting the fan and you are going to file with ACAS, the Insurance co will then look to engage a solicitor or similar. I asked them to cover for me with the Barrister to act for me. All approved quickly and they signed off a reasonable up front amount for the Barrister to draw down on.

Perhaps your friend needs to find the same ?

I am based in the North East and would recommend the lady I used FWIW.

[Hungrymc]

So, they have now taken a bit more legal advice. In summary, the advice is to ask a few specific questions about the redundancy process (pool, selection criteria etc). And keep the rest of the issues quiet until these initial ones are answered. The next meeting with HR is early next week and a follow up with the solicitor afterwards.

Thanks again all and I’ll update as things progress.

[Hungrymc]

Quick update.

It rumbles on. Friend has some good independent help and seems to have several pretty strong arguments. Some of which are reasonable business cases for how the redundancy will cost the business money not save. More importantly, a number of issues with the actual process that has (hasn't) been followed.

I cant imagine the consultation will go on much longer, and the arguments will turn into unfair dismissal discussions.... We'll see.

[Countdown]

Hungrymc said:

Quick update.

It rumbles on. Friend has some good independent help and seems to have several pretty strong arguments. Some of which are reasonable business cases for how the redundancy will cost the business money not save. More importantly, a number of issues with the actual process that has (hasn't) been followed.

I cant imagine the consultation will go on much longer, and the arguments will turn into unfair dismissal discussions.... We'll see.

The “following due process” will be a good approach for him. However I think the “will cost the business more money” is an irrelevant argument. It’s not for him to decide HOW the business should be spending their money.

Somebody in my team was made redundant last year and it was clear to a blind deaf mute that the outsourcing would cost more money. I explained this to my boss and his argument was that there would be other “benefits”. Personally I think the benefits were outweighed by the costs but that was HIS decision to make.

[Countdown]

If you need some support....?