Employment Tribunal Advice - Constructive Dismissal
Discussion
I think you probably need to give more information on this, as at the moment, it just sounds like you wanted redundancy, didnt get it, got moved to a different role as part of a restructure that you didnt want, so have handed your notice in and want to do them for constructive dismissal.
How long have you worked for the company?
would you be entitled to redundancy?
How long have you worked for the company?
would you be entitled to redundancy?
The sections in bold may be relevant:
"... significant fact of working life today: Covid-19 has swung the balance of power in favour of employers in dozens of industries.
The precarious employment situation hardly encourages workers to take on a company, no matter how egregious.
And those who decide to fight face a long wait for a day in court. In the UK, social distancing rules have compounded a backlog of unheard employment complaints that by August had risen to 39,000.
If you lodge a claim today, it might not be heard until 2022, by which time your employer could have gone bust."
"... significant fact of working life today: Covid-19 has swung the balance of power in favour of employers in dozens of industries.
The precarious employment situation hardly encourages workers to take on a company, no matter how egregious.
And those who decide to fight face a long wait for a day in court. In the UK, social distancing rules have compounded a backlog of unheard employment complaints that by August had risen to 39,000.
If you lodge a claim today, it might not be heard until 2022, by which time your employer could have gone bust."
giggity said:
I’ve been with them >8 years.
A large number were offered VR / Redundancy.
What I can say is I’m hopeful having spoken to colleagues that this hasn’t gone smoothly for them and it won’t want to go into the public domain therefore I’m looking to obtain what I would have been entitled to under redundancy and hopefully obtain it under an NDA settlement.
If I was offered a suitable role it wouldn’t have been a problem but the role wasn’t suitable and it was a greater change then they advised it would be. They refused to discuss or engage on this matter in any regard.
I was left with no choice either accept an inappropriate role or leave.
Oh and they won’t be going bust in a hurry.
So has your previous role been made redundant? and why is your new role unsuitable?A large number were offered VR / Redundancy.
What I can say is I’m hopeful having spoken to colleagues that this hasn’t gone smoothly for them and it won’t want to go into the public domain therefore I’m looking to obtain what I would have been entitled to under redundancy and hopefully obtain it under an NDA settlement.
If I was offered a suitable role it wouldn’t have been a problem but the role wasn’t suitable and it was a greater change then they advised it would be. They refused to discuss or engage on this matter in any regard.
I was left with no choice either accept an inappropriate role or leave.
Oh and they won’t be going bust in a hurry.
giggity said:
Yes the existing role no longer exists.
I was matched on solely one area of my existing role. All other aspects of my role were stripped away and a new responsibilities introduced that are not applicable to me but they wanted me to perform.
They refused to discuss or engage or elaborate their decision. When I had tendered my resignation they admitted they only matched me on one area of my role and therefore introduced a greater than 20% change - something they said wouldn’t occur.
I believe that a new role doesnt have to involve anything from your current role to be classed as suitable, its all to do with what is being asked of you in the new role.I was matched on solely one area of my existing role. All other aspects of my role were stripped away and a new responsibilities introduced that are not applicable to me but they wanted me to perform.
They refused to discuss or engage or elaborate their decision. When I had tendered my resignation they admitted they only matched me on one area of my role and therefore introduced a greater than 20% change - something they said wouldn’t occur.
Is there too much work for 1 person to complete in your new role?
Are they offering training?
What makes it unsuitable to you?
You have to give a reason why its unsuitable, and not just that its different to your old role to be constructive dismissal.
You need some specific time and advice with somebody and you won't get enough from these short from messages.
Did you go through a redundancy process and then get offered a suitable alternative? Did you refuse the offer and resign straight away or did you begin a trial period in this new role?
Did you go through a redundancy process and then get offered a suitable alternative? Did you refuse the offer and resign straight away or did you begin a trial period in this new role?
On the basis of what you have said, it looks like you may have a reasonable case.
However, it would have been much stronger of you had taken the new role. You would then have evidence to show your unsuitability for it and if the company denied you training to address any deficiencies, that would be a slum-dunk constructive dismissal.
As it stands, you'd need to argue why you feel you were constructively dismissed and the company would argue why you weren't.
Your evidence appears to be the lack of meaningful consultation. Unfortunately, this is a term that's somewhat abstract unless the process that apples is clearly set out in a contract or company handbook. An email that's signed off with the words 'let me know if you need any more info" may be classed as an opportunity for consultation.
I'd say it's resting in you favour 60/40 - may be a bit more - so if the amount at stake is significant might be worth pursuing. If it's not, then you might be better served chalking it up as experience and move on.
Before you throw money at this and too much time, I would gauge ACAS's initial response.
However, it would have been much stronger of you had taken the new role. You would then have evidence to show your unsuitability for it and if the company denied you training to address any deficiencies, that would be a slum-dunk constructive dismissal.
As it stands, you'd need to argue why you feel you were constructively dismissed and the company would argue why you weren't.
Your evidence appears to be the lack of meaningful consultation. Unfortunately, this is a term that's somewhat abstract unless the process that apples is clearly set out in a contract or company handbook. An email that's signed off with the words 'let me know if you need any more info" may be classed as an opportunity for consultation.
I'd say it's resting in you favour 60/40 - may be a bit more - so if the amount at stake is significant might be worth pursuing. If it's not, then you might be better served chalking it up as experience and move on.
Before you throw money at this and too much time, I would gauge ACAS's initial response.
giggity said:
Hi All,
Having recently left my former employer during a restructure. I wasn’t offered any redundancy (offered an inappropriate slot in role) and the consultation was meaningless.
This would appear to be somewhat contradictory unless I am simply too tired to read it correctly. Having recently left my former employer during a restructure. I wasn’t offered any redundancy (offered an inappropriate slot in role) and the consultation was meaningless.
If you had a consultation process I would assume that is a redundancy situation, thus "wasn't offered" any redundancy does not make sense? It sounds like your role was redundant and there was an offer of an alleged suitable alternative which you consider was not? Do you mean that the employer has claimed that you unreasonably refused an alternative job ?
But "having left" were you terminated based upon your refusal to accept an alternative or did you resign? Constructive dismissal is generally where you consider a fundamental breach of contract has occurred and you resign as a result of that breach, yet it seems from the other part of the post that your did not resign.
Are you able to clarify at all? Also do contact your insurers right away as they can take some time to get back to you with a response. Your LEI is also likely to have a panel firm in the event you are happy to use them.
I cant offer any opinions on your chances of success or otherwise, but have you considered that you will, likely, make yourself unemployable?
Unless the amount of money from redundancy is much, much more than the statutory minimum, or you were very well paid, it doesnt seem like a fight worth fighting, given my above comment.
The job market is going to get VERY competative from now on. Someone who has, or is attempting to take there previous employer to court is going to be well down the list come selection time.
Unless the amount of money from redundancy is much, much more than the statutory minimum, or you were very well paid, it doesnt seem like a fight worth fighting, given my above comment.
The job market is going to get VERY competative from now on. Someone who has, or is attempting to take there previous employer to court is going to be well down the list come selection time.
I'm reading this with interest.
Couple of questions:
1) if the employer is making the post he was working in "redundant", why isnt the options take redundancy, or the different job? - why does it appear that the only option is resign or take the other job?
2) Regarding the other general posts about the employer seems to be in most favours in these times, and whether you'd make it difficult to be re-employed with this going on, why is this the case? - I get the job market is tricky, but that shouldnt be an excuse for an employer to treat an employee like crap on the thought train that the employee would put up with it because they have no other option. Similarly, why would a new employer know about the case with the previous employer, and would it really be fair to tar a previous poor experiece with a employer that potentially didnt appreciate or do things right with their employee.
P.S - OP - I hope you get an agreeable outcome with your position, whatever happens. Good luck.
Couple of questions:
1) if the employer is making the post he was working in "redundant", why isnt the options take redundancy, or the different job? - why does it appear that the only option is resign or take the other job?
2) Regarding the other general posts about the employer seems to be in most favours in these times, and whether you'd make it difficult to be re-employed with this going on, why is this the case? - I get the job market is tricky, but that shouldnt be an excuse for an employer to treat an employee like crap on the thought train that the employee would put up with it because they have no other option. Similarly, why would a new employer know about the case with the previous employer, and would it really be fair to tar a previous poor experiece with a employer that potentially didnt appreciate or do things right with their employee.
P.S - OP - I hope you get an agreeable outcome with your position, whatever happens. Good luck.
giggity said:
...this hasn’t gone smoothly for them and it won’t want to go into the public domain therefore I’m looking to obtain what I would have been entitled to under redundancy and hopefully obtain it under an NDA settlement.
giggity said:
...I know it’s in *neither* parties interest to place this into the public domain.
I wouldn't necessarily put too much weight on that. People tend to overestimate the public's interest and the impact it may have on a company's reputation, especially in the current employment environment.That the change from your previous job is more than 20% may or may not be relevant. Apart from any change, what specifically about the role you had been offered meant that you were not suited to it if given the necessary training? If you're a bricklayer or a plasterer, you can't become a Gas Safe registered plumber overnight, and if you're an accountant, asking you to become a sales rep may not be suitable; however, if you're financial analyst, asking you to work in payroll or financial auditing may be deemed suitable even though they're all very different.
vaud said:
Breadvan72 (barrister)
or
JasandJules (unsure on quals but seems well trained)
I have been trying to give up statutory employment law for years, and have mostly succeeded in this aim. I still remember some of the stuff, but the PH expert on employment law who is well informed and up to date is, as mentioned, Jasandjules. or
JasandJules (unsure on quals but seems well trained)
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff