Redundancy - Unfair dismissal?
Discussion
Hi all - long time reader but would like to remain anonymous for this.
I've recently been selected for redundancy (only statutory) after a long and drawn out "consultation" period lasting many months.
Basically, I think that my employer may not have followed the correct redundancy process. They have used a selection matrix to determine who will be made redundant, I don't have a problem with this, however, the selection matrix was created about a month before I was placed at risk of redundancy. Additionally, during the initial meeting that placed employees at risk, it was explained that the selection matrix and selection criteria would be completed at some point in the future, this was to allow us to "question" the selection criteria - obviously that isn't the case.
There are quite a number of other inconsistencies as well, but I think that's the biggest one. Would this be a case of unfair dismissal on the basis of "fait accompli"? Or is it acceptable to have a predetermined score/outcome before any consultations take place?
TIA
I've recently been selected for redundancy (only statutory) after a long and drawn out "consultation" period lasting many months.
Basically, I think that my employer may not have followed the correct redundancy process. They have used a selection matrix to determine who will be made redundant, I don't have a problem with this, however, the selection matrix was created about a month before I was placed at risk of redundancy. Additionally, during the initial meeting that placed employees at risk, it was explained that the selection matrix and selection criteria would be completed at some point in the future, this was to allow us to "question" the selection criteria - obviously that isn't the case.
There are quite a number of other inconsistencies as well, but I think that's the biggest one. Would this be a case of unfair dismissal on the basis of "fait accompli"? Or is it acceptable to have a predetermined score/outcome before any consultations take place?
TIA
The selection criteria & matrices would need to be completed prior to selection of at risk people.
They should share the scoring basis with you during the initial meeting & enable you to appeal any of the scores you were given. Once everybody who is at risk has been through this process, any changes to scoring would be made which could change the selection of at risk people & scores could only then be finalised.
They should share the scoring basis with you during the initial meeting & enable you to appeal any of the scores you were given. Once everybody who is at risk has been through this process, any changes to scoring would be made which could change the selection of at risk people & scores could only then be finalised.
shouldbworking said:
Put yourself in the employers shoes.. if you were thinking you need to make some redundancies, you'd probably want to give it some thought about how you did it before you announced it.
Indeed so, the problem comes when you look at the selection criteria and scoring you have been given, compare it with how you think your colleagues who survived would have scored and think WTAF?? .....and then you realise that its been bent to achieve a particular outcome. It happened to me many years ago.
For the OP if this is what has happened then I think you have to take the view that your time there is probably done. There are so many (mental) issues that arise when you get selected by managers you thought would be straight with you and it turns out they are not, even if the thing gets rescinded. It becomes impossible to continue working for them because basically the trust has been broken.
If that's where you are at then the next objective is to get as much from them as possible and leave. You would need to seek advice from an employment solicitor as to how you would prove that the criteria had been bent but it would likely be very difficult to achieve.
So you can either get on with life & take what is offered or be prepared for a game of bluff & see if you can bluff your way to a better settlement by pointing out the inconsistencies and unreasonable nature of the criteria and/or scoring process - if that exists.
Obviously you will not be able to see everyone else's scores though so hard evidence would be almost impossible to acquire and much of it will be subjective anyway. You would need to try and work out how somebody how has not been selected managed to score better than you did, but the liklihood is that unless they have been very stupid, you aren't going to get very far.
Good luck
Wombat3 said:
Indeed so, the problem comes when you look at the selection criteria and scoring you have been given, compare it with how you think your colleagues who survived would have scored and think WTAF??
.....and then you realise that its been bent to achieve a particular outcome. It happened to me many years ago.
For the OP if this is what has happened then I think you have to take the view that your time there is probably done. There are so many (mental) issues that arise when you get selected by managers you thought would be straight with you and it turns out they are not, even if the thing gets rescinded. It becomes impossible to continue working for them because basically the trust has been broken.
If that's where you are at then the next objective is to get as much from them as possible and leave. You would need to seek advice from an employment solicitor as to how you would prove that the criteria had been bent but it would likely be very difficult to achieve.
So you can either get on with life & take what is offered or be prepared for a game of bluff & see if you can bluff your way to a better settlement by pointing out the inconsistencies and unreasonable nature of the criteria and/or scoring process - if that exists.
Obviously you will not be able to see everyone else's scores though so hard evidence would be almost impossible to acquire and much of it will be subjective anyway. You would need to try and work out how somebody how has not been selected managed to score better than you did, but the liklihood is that unless they have been very stupid, you aren't going to get very far.
Good luck
All very true. In most cases managers will know who they see as their weaker players & will look to offload before any criteria are drawn up. .....and then you realise that its been bent to achieve a particular outcome. It happened to me many years ago.
For the OP if this is what has happened then I think you have to take the view that your time there is probably done. There are so many (mental) issues that arise when you get selected by managers you thought would be straight with you and it turns out they are not, even if the thing gets rescinded. It becomes impossible to continue working for them because basically the trust has been broken.
If that's where you are at then the next objective is to get as much from them as possible and leave. You would need to seek advice from an employment solicitor as to how you would prove that the criteria had been bent but it would likely be very difficult to achieve.
So you can either get on with life & take what is offered or be prepared for a game of bluff & see if you can bluff your way to a better settlement by pointing out the inconsistencies and unreasonable nature of the criteria and/or scoring process - if that exists.
Obviously you will not be able to see everyone else's scores though so hard evidence would be almost impossible to acquire and much of it will be subjective anyway. You would need to try and work out how somebody how has not been selected managed to score better than you did, but the liklihood is that unless they have been very stupid, you aren't going to get very far.
Good luck
Roaringopenfire said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Sorry to hear of your situation.
Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
+1
Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
+1
Got made redundant in 2001 and 2009
Within 6 months I was sure it was the best thing that had happened in my career so far.
Absolutely normal to devise selection criteria before putting staff at risk.
Also normal to allow staff to challenge the criteria before scoring is done.
In reality, the firm will have determined who it wants to keep and the criteria will have been devised with this in mind. Rightly or wrongly, that's how it goes.
It's a harsh reality but you need to accept that the decision has made and you are going.
Only real question now is whether you can negotiate an uplift on your stat redundancy pay. I assume you have more than 2 years' service - if not, you do not have unfair dismissal rights.
Were the criteria sufficiently concrete and supported by evidence or were they based on vague concepts such as "flexibility"? If the criteria were not identifiable and supported by evidence, you can challenge them.
Have you any health conditions that could potentially amount to disabilities? Did the selection criteria unfairly consider absences due to health problems.
Was furlough used? Are they jumping the gun and making redundancies now instead of waiting to see whether business bounces back.
Is there anything about you that stands out compared to the rest? (e.g. are you the only BAME employee or the only one who has spoken up about health and safety issues?).
If you can raise a credible inference of discrimination and suggest that this has contributed to your selection, you have leverage to invite a "without prejudice" (i.e. off record) discussion about enhanced severance terms. Ditto with the other points.
Alternatively, just make yourself the biggest pain in the arse and raise a grievance about the process and how it's been handled. Make Data Subject Access Requests. Appeal the redundancy etc.
Keep the 3 month time limit in mind. File an EC request with ACAS within that time.
Realistically most firms will throw you a few grand, purely on a "commercial" basis (i.e. it will cost us more to fight you).
Good luck
Also normal to allow staff to challenge the criteria before scoring is done.
In reality, the firm will have determined who it wants to keep and the criteria will have been devised with this in mind. Rightly or wrongly, that's how it goes.
It's a harsh reality but you need to accept that the decision has made and you are going.
Only real question now is whether you can negotiate an uplift on your stat redundancy pay. I assume you have more than 2 years' service - if not, you do not have unfair dismissal rights.
Were the criteria sufficiently concrete and supported by evidence or were they based on vague concepts such as "flexibility"? If the criteria were not identifiable and supported by evidence, you can challenge them.
Have you any health conditions that could potentially amount to disabilities? Did the selection criteria unfairly consider absences due to health problems.
Was furlough used? Are they jumping the gun and making redundancies now instead of waiting to see whether business bounces back.
Is there anything about you that stands out compared to the rest? (e.g. are you the only BAME employee or the only one who has spoken up about health and safety issues?).
If you can raise a credible inference of discrimination and suggest that this has contributed to your selection, you have leverage to invite a "without prejudice" (i.e. off record) discussion about enhanced severance terms. Ditto with the other points.
Alternatively, just make yourself the biggest pain in the arse and raise a grievance about the process and how it's been handled. Make Data Subject Access Requests. Appeal the redundancy etc.
Keep the 3 month time limit in mind. File an EC request with ACAS within that time.
Realistically most firms will throw you a few grand, purely on a "commercial" basis (i.e. it will cost us more to fight you).
Good luck
Apologies, I couldn't reply any early due to a blanket ban on new members from posting last night. Thanks for all the comments so far, it's useful to have another perspective and some insight.
Just to clarify one point, as I'm not sure I explained it correctly in my original post. The scoring for the selection matrix was completed approximately one month before we were informed of any proposed redundancies.
Just to clarify one point, as I'm not sure I explained it correctly in my original post. The scoring for the selection matrix was completed approximately one month before we were informed of any proposed redundancies.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Sorry to hear of your situation.
Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
Thanks. It's a been a fairly miserable time with the uncertainty and knowing the current condition of the jobs market.Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
I have accepted that my time is over at my current employer but if I can use this to improve on my statutory redundancy package, then it would be really helpful.
There are other issues with the scoring for the selection criteria which I will expand on later.
GT03ROB said:
The selection criteria & matrices would need to be completed prior to selection of at risk people.
They should share the scoring basis with you during the initial meeting & enable you to appeal any of the scores you were given. Once everybody who is at risk has been through this process, any changes to scoring would be made which could change the selection of at risk people & scores could only then be finalised.
So it is normal for the scoring to be done before the consultation has started?They should share the scoring basis with you during the initial meeting & enable you to appeal any of the scores you were given. Once everybody who is at risk has been through this process, any changes to scoring would be made which could change the selection of at risk people & scores could only then be finalised.
That doesn't sit with the way the process was explained at the first meeting where the redundancy proposal was announced. We were informed that the scoring had yet to take place.
shouldbworking said:
Put yourself in the employers shoes.. if you were thinking you need to make some redundancies, you'd probably want to give it some thought about how you did it before you announced it.
I agree but I would like the process to be conducted in a fair way that hasn't concluded before it has started.Although, I appreciate business is business, it doesn't help my current situation and if they haven't followed a legal process then it leaves them vulnerable (to an extent).
If you mean they came up with the criteria, scored everyone, and then told you about redundancies being in the offing, yes, that sounds off to me.
I believe they should tell you about the redundancies and the criteria before scoring against them, to give the opportunity to object to the criteria used.
In reality, they know damn well how everyone will score, as they will have chosen the criteria to produce the result they want.
I believe they should tell you about the redundancies and the criteria before scoring against them, to give the opportunity to object to the criteria used.
In reality, they know damn well how everyone will score, as they will have chosen the criteria to produce the result they want.
Wombat3 said:
shouldbworking said:
Put yourself in the employers shoes.. if you were thinking you need to make some redundancies, you'd probably want to give it some thought about how you did it before you announced it.
Indeed so, the problem comes when you look at the selection criteria and scoring you have been given, compare it with how you think your colleagues who survived would have scored and think WTAF?? .....and then you realise that its been bent to achieve a particular outcome. It happened to me many years ago.
For the OP if this is what has happened then I think you have to take the view that your time there is probably done. There are so many (mental) issues that arise when you get selected by managers you thought would be straight with you and it turns out they are not, even if the thing gets rescinded. It becomes impossible to continue working for them because basically the trust has been broken.
If that's where you are at then the next objective is to get as much from them as possible and leave. You would need to seek advice from an employment solicitor as to how you would prove that the criteria had been bent but it would likely be very difficult to achieve.
So you can either get on with life & take what is offered or be prepared for a game of bluff & see if you can bluff your way to a better settlement by pointing out the inconsistencies and unreasonable nature of the criteria and/or scoring process - if that exists.
Obviously you will not be able to see everyone else's scores though so hard evidence would be almost impossible to acquire and much of it will be subjective anyway. You would need to try and work out how somebody how has not been selected managed to score better than you did, but the liklihood is that unless they have been very stupid, you aren't going to get very far.
Good luck
I know the scores of the other members in the selection pool and I know how they have scored for each category. Interestingly in the performance category, my colleague scored higher than me in the selection matrix despite scoring exactly the same in their appraisal.
Additionally, one of my scores was marked down subjectively against the quantifiable criteria set out in the selection matrix.
Another failure in my view is that the selection matrix does not say who scored it, is not dated and is not signed by myself, manager or HR.
And one more... the scores in the selection matrix do not correctly add up to the total scored!
Jasandjules said:
There are a number of factors to take into consideration.
Two questions to ask yourself however is what is any likely Tribunal award and/or what do you seek to achieve?
For me, I would like to improve the redundancy package - I've viewed some of the average awards and they aren't huge, although I suspect most are settled before reaching a tribunal.Two questions to ask yourself however is what is any likely Tribunal award and/or what do you seek to achieve?
Roaringopenfire said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Sorry to hear of your situation.
Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
+1
Redundancy is rubbish for both sides. It's always tricky to challenge selection criteria. In my experience the best thing to do for one's sanity is forget it & concentrate on looking forward.
+1
I think it's likely that it is the standard selection criteria they have used previously with most of the categories being quantifiable, with the exception of one that could be quantifiable (attendance) but is scored in a subjective way.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff