A Redundancy Legitimacy Question - short-cut process?

[SpeckledJim]

Posting on behalf of a family member (X) who is going through this process now.

X works in sales for a medium-sized company.

At the outset of the lockdown they were placed on furlough, where they have remained until now.

A round of redundancies was announced, and an evaluation matrix was published based on performance, sales, personal competencies and skills, attendance, and this was completed. Subsequently it was decided that this evaluation matrix would not be used (at all), and instead a single interview would be used for the judgement of who would be for the chop. Many of these staff haven't had a job interview for 20+ years, but know their jobs backwards.

This struck many as unfair, but we decided to sit tight and see what happened next. In the event, X survived that round of redundancies, and was told their job was safe, although they were not brought back from furlough.

Last week the staff were told that 4 more members of staff would be made redundant, and X was one of them. No further process or judgement was done, and no pool of staff created from whom the 4 would be chosen. Apparently the results of the previous, complete, redundancies process was used, and the new 'bottom 4' are out.

A consultation period of 30 days has begun, but everyone has been told who the 4 are, and the 4 have not been given any option as yet of how their job can be saved.


Is it legitimate to use a single interview, from a previous round of redundancies, to determine who is to lose their job in a subsequent round? This has been presented to the whole company as a fait accompli, and no discussion of a second process is being entertained by the company.


There's more to it, which I'll gladly expand upon, but any informed opinion on the above would be greatly appreciated.

[Johnnytheboy]

They know who they want shot of, and are trying to choose a method that enables this.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Johnnytheboy said:

They know who they want shot of, and are trying to choose a method that enables this.

That's what everybody does. There are more subtle ways of doing it.

[Countdown]

Assuming the process was fair the first time around what would be the benefit of running the same process AGAIN so soon after the first one finished?

[craigjm]

SpeckledJim said:

Is it legitimate to use a single interview, from a previous round of redundancies, to determine who is to lose their job in a subsequent round? This has been presented to the whole company as a fait accompli, and no discussion of a second process is being entertained by the company.

Yes as long as the interviews were fairly recent

[SpeckledJim]

Thanks all.

Is there any mileage in the decision by management to conduct a pretty rigorous decision-making matrix, but then having seen the results of that exercise, decide to set that completely aside and instead use only a simple half hour interview to determine the result?

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

SpeckledJim said:

Thanks all.

Is there any mileage in the decision by management to conduct a pretty rigorous decision-making matrix, but then having seen the results of that exercise, decide to set that completely aside and instead use only a simple half hour interview to determine the result?

I'm not an expert, but it does sound iffy.

Having said that if somebody wants somebody gone the end outcome will probably end up the same, although it might cost them more.

Somebody with better knowledge will be along soon. It's a crap situation for everybody.

[omniflow]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - anyone who expects a redundancy process to be fair is being extremely naïve. Management will have worked out who they don't want - or possibly who they do want - everything else will just be a veneer to make things look legitimate. Whether or not your friend / family member can do something about this really depends on time, money and tenacity.

Go and see an employment lawyer, which the company might pay for as part of the compromise agreement (if there is one). Describe the process to them, and they will tell you if you have a case. However, the most a tribunal will award is £60K unless your friend can prove he / she has a protected characteristic.

My advice would be to suck it up and move on.

[38911]

omniflow said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - anyone who expects a redundancy process to be fair is being extremely naïve. Management will have worked out who they don't want - or possibly who they do want - everything else will just be a veneer to make things look legitimate.

My considerable experience - having been involved in many redundancies and having attended several Employee Dismissal Tribunals - is the exact opposite. I have encountered one or two ‘rogue’ managers that have tried to manipulate the process to get an outcome they want - but the notion that a redundancy process is a veneer - or that the entire process is fixed, is nonsense.

[craigjm]

SpeckledJim said:

Thanks all.

Is there any mileage in the decision by management to conduct a pretty rigorous decision-making matrix, but then having seen the results of that exercise, decide to set that completely aside and instead use only a simple half hour interview to determine the result?

Not really. In my experience over the years of someone has been marked for redundancy the best approach is to take it on the chin and aim for the best settlement you can. Time at that company is over. When negotiating the settlement it’s worth raising the question over the process as this may assist in the settlement being larger.

[mat205125]

No conclusion can be made on who is leaving during a consultation period, as that makes a mockery of the process and is unlawful.

[SpeckledJim]

mat205125 said:

No conclusion can be made on who is leaving during a consultation period, as that makes a mockery of the process and is unlawful.

That's interesting.

X got many 'sorry you're leaving' commiseration texts from colleagues before having been told by the company that the 30 day consultation had started. There's no suggestion that this is anything except a 'done deal', and the names of the four staff losing the four jobs are widely known and not in doubt. Everyone else has been told they have survived 'round 2'.

Maybe relevant?:
A member of staff from a different department who is currently on maternity leave has been moved into X's role in a new organisational chart that has been published.

Edited by SpeckledJim on Wednesday 30th September 13:34

[edc]

38911 said:

omniflow said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - anyone who expects a redundancy process to be fair is being extremely naïve. Management will have worked out who they don't want - or possibly who they do want - everything else will just be a veneer to make things look legitimate.

My considerable experience - having been involved in many redundancies and having attended several Employee Dismissal Tribunals - is the exact opposite. I have encountered one or two ‘rogue’ managers that have tried to manipulate the process to get an outcome they want - but the notion that a redundancy process is a veneer - or that the entire process is fixed, is nonsense.

Same here. Employees also need a reality check on what the process and outcomes can be for a tribunal process. The max statutory award is over £80k. But go and have a look at the average award payouts which used to be and should still be listed on their website.

Managers may have their preconceptions of who should or shouldn't go. Whilst some will take umbrage at that it is no different to any regular employee having an opinion on another. This is really the first stage of what forms a selection criteria or process? Why is it that person? There will at most times be logic and reasoning behind it.

[SpeckledJim]

craigjm said:

SpeckledJim said:

Thanks all.

Is there any mileage in the decision by management to conduct a pretty rigorous decision-making matrix, but then having seen the results of that exercise, decide to set that completely aside and instead use only a simple half hour interview to determine the result?

Not really. In my experience over the years of someone has been marked for redundancy the best approach is to take it on the chin and aim for the best settlement you can. Time at that company is over. When negotiating the settlement it’s worth raising the question over the process as this may assist in the settlement being larger.

Thank you, I agree.

X is moving rapidly through the stages of grief, and knocking on the door of 'acceptance'. But also feels badly stitched-up, given X knows what the sidelined quantitative matrix would have shown.

X's 'representative' in the process forwarded X's questions onto HR with 'Sorry about this' (meaning 'sorry this member of staff with nearly 20 years service has the tiresome temerity to ask some questions about being given the boot') and accidentally forwarded that email back to X.

So X knows that the nominated representative is not on X's side, and feels betrayed by a friend.

[paulrockliffe]

edc said:

But go and have a look at the average award payouts which used to be and should still be listed on their website.

I wouldn't look at that. It doesn't reflect the average payout at all because it does not include any claims that are settled prior to tribunal. The greater the likely pay-out the more likely it is to be settled as employees tend to be less risk-averse once a decent wedge is offered and employers are quite risk averse anyway.

My wife does this all day every day, it's rare that any of her work ends up hitting that statistic.

[mr_spock]

SpeckledJim said:

Maybe relevant?:
A member of staff from a different department who is currently on maternity leave has been moved into X's role in a new organisational chart that has been published.

Edited by SpeckledJim on Wednesday 30th September 13:34

If the role still exists, this is arguably not redundancy. If it's a merger of roles, maybe ok. I'd suggest getting professional, indemnified advice asap.

[craigjm]

mr_spock said:

SpeckledJim said:

Maybe relevant?:
A member of staff from a different department who is currently on maternity leave has been moved into X's role in a new organisational chart that has been published.

Edited by SpeckledJim on Wednesday 30th September 13:34

If the role still exists, this is arguably not redundancy. If it's a merger of roles, maybe ok. I'd suggest getting professional, indemnified advice asap.

It can be. It is perfectly legal to conduct a bumped redundancy where person A role is made redundant but they are placed into person B role and person B is made redundant

[Jasandjules]

craigjm said:

SpeckledJim said:

Is it legitimate to use a single interview, from a previous round of redundancies, to determine who is to lose their job in a subsequent round? This has been presented to the whole company as a fait accompli, and no discussion of a second process is being entertained by the company.

Yes as long as the interviews were fairly recent

It can be rather risky however to do so given the allegations which can be raised and may be more viable in a very small company rather than any with a reasonable (say over 50) employees.

[edc]

paulrockliffe said:

edc said:

But go and have a look at the average award payouts which used to be and should still be listed on their website.

I wouldn't look at that. It doesn't reflect the average payout at all because it does not include any claims that are settled prior to tribunal. The greater the likely pay-out the more likely it is to be settled as employees tend to be less risk-averse once a decent wedge is offered and employers are quite risk averse anyway.

My wife does this all day every day, it's rare that any of her work ends up hitting that statistic.

But the tribunal layout stats are as they are. Employers aren't routinely paying over the odds via an SA or COT3 if they have a good case and even so I don't think you can find data for this. The tribunal award is the end of the line so gives a good indication of what you will get if you push the process as far as it goes.

It's also worth bearing in mind that just because you file a claim that there is no guarantee of a hearing let alone an agreement or an award. Perhaps just as likely is a case management hearing and you may not pass go; or maybe less prevalent now is the claimant finds another role and either drops the case or the award is very low as the loss is small.

[paulrockliffe]

edc said:

paulrockliffe said:

edc said:

But go and have a look at the average award payouts which used to be and should still be listed on their website.

I wouldn't look at that. It doesn't reflect the average payout at all because it does not include any claims that are settled prior to tribunal. The greater the likely pay-out the more likely it is to be settled as employees tend to be less risk-averse once a decent wedge is offered and employers are quite risk averse anyway.

My wife does this all day every day, it's rare that any of her work ends up hitting that statistic.

But the tribunal layout stats are as they are. Employers aren't routinely paying over the odds via an SA or COT3 if they have a good case and even so I don't think you can find data for this. The tribunal award is the end of the line so gives a good indication of what you will get if you push the process as far as it goes.

It's also worth bearing in mind that just because you file a claim that there is no guarantee of a hearing let alone an agreement or an award. Perhaps just as likely is a case management hearing and you may not pass go; or maybe less prevalent now is the claimant finds another role and either drops the case or the award is very low as the loss is small.

Of course, the stats are what they are, but they're not a good guide at all.

Each case stands on it's own merits. Whether you know the merits of an individual case or not, simply pointing at an average of a small and extremely unrepresentative sample of other cases you know nothing meaningful about, because that's all there is, and suggesting that that might somehow relate to your case is misleading at best.

The one time I had to take this course of action myself, the opposition solicitor tried this trick; "The average is this, blah blah blah." Yet the case settled for many multiples of the average as soon as I submitted my bundle and they knew I was happy to go to Tribunal with a solid case.