Case for Constructive dismissal but need advice.

[StuVT]

I really need help.

I have been with a company since the early 2000's and got to a good management level and the career was going well.
The company then had a restructure and my job was redundant but I was kept on. I did some secondments and then was put in a newly formed dept that lasted 6 months until it was disbanded and again I was kept on with the promise of an equal role in another new dept. My manager has shown me the plans and organisation flows of their new department and where I would sit within it.
It all looked positive and exciting. Now it transpires it's not going to happen and it may have been a flight of fantasy on their part. I now think it was more of a business case that got rejected than a bona fide move the company wanted to make.

I'm still seconded to a National Management role that I accepted as I was told there was a new role in the new dept as of August 1st. My secondment comes to an end on 1st of August. My manager informs me the company will be moving to a different management structure and my current National Role will cease to exist so my secondment cannot be extended.
My manager has asked HR to find me a role but didn't give the full background.
My manager has now said any role I accept I also accept the salary grade. Most of what she has brought to me are up to a 50% salary reduction.
I've brought HR up to speed along with one of the directors who I have discussed my situation with. HR have again informed me that any role I accept will be at the lesser salary grade and there are no grounds to honour what my package is now as I'm accepting a role rather than being given one.

I feel I've stupidly wasted 3 years trusting what was once a open and honest company but alas it seems I've been stitched up. Salary frozen for 3 years, career frozen for the same amount of time and now it's take a huge salary cut or sling your hook. Redundancy hasn't been mentioned. When asked they tell me they will not be offering redundancy. I pushed and they said if they were to it would adhere to the minimum the government guidelines lay out.

My expectations are that they will give me a role for lesser salary and I will then look elsewhere and leave, then I would very much like to do them for constructive dismissal.

I need to know how to do it and whether it's a valid course of action.

I would really appreciate advice, solicitor recommendations to take on the case as no win no fee and what I should now be putting into motion.

Thank you
S

Edited by StuVT on Wednesday 28th July 17:01

Edited by StuVT on Wednesday 28th July 17:02

[38911]

Sounds more like a redundancy situation, than constructive dismissal.

You don't need to accept a pay cut - your salary is based on your current terms of employment. They need to find you a role to perform, or make you redundant (I suspect the latter will happen - and stat min is not a lot).

Edited by 38911 on Wednesday 28th July 16:46

[Countdown]

IANAL but that pretty much sounds like Redundancy to me.

When they say "they're only offering the statutory minimum" do they have a Redundancy Policy? The point I'm making is that if they normally offer e.g. 1 month per year worked they can't say to you that you're only getting statutory Redundancy pay.

[38911]

Countdown said:

IANAL but that pretty much sounds like Redundancy to me.

When they say "they're only offering the statutory minimum" do they have a Redundancy Policy? The point I'm making is that if they normally offer e.g. 1 month per year worked they can't say to you that you're only getting statutory Redundancy pay.

That only applies if the redundancy terms are written into the employment contract. Otherwise they can vary the terms/change the policy whenever they like.

[SydneyBridge]

For constructive dismissal you would need to resign first because of what has happened and then make a claim

I would try and get out with as much money as possible and move on

[ChocolateFrog]

If you've been there for 20 years or so and the salary is good won't the redundancy have to be pretty decent even at minimum levels?

[StuVT]

My expectations are that they will give me a role for lesser salary and I will then look elsewhere and leave, then I would very much like to do them for unfair dismissal. I should have added that to the original post. I'll go back and edit.

I wanted to know how to do it and whether it's a valid course of action.

[eliot]

ChocolateFrog said:

If you've been there for 20 years or so and the salary is good won't the redundancy have to be pretty decent even at minimum levels?

Pay is capped at £544 per week for each year you worked also capped at 20 years - which isn’t much imo.

[dundarach]

Remember both sides can have an off the record conversation around a settlement agreement, which depending on what you do and your age etc. might give you enough to survive until you secure another job.

[38911]

StuVT said:

My expectations are that they will give me a role for lesser salary and I will then look elsewhere and leave, then I would very much like to do them for unfair dismissal. I should have added that to the original post. I'll go back and edit.

I wanted to know how to do it and whether it's a valid course of action.

Why would you "very much like to do them for unfair dismissal"? Bit of a daft comment to be honest, and suggests you don't exactly have a great attitude towards them - perhaps this is why you don't have a role?

Just refuse a pay cut. Tell them you'll do whatever role they want you to do, but aren't willing to accept a change to your contract of employment. They either find you a role on current salary, or make you redundant.

[StevieBee]

From your description, it appears to me that they are trying to avoid making your redundant because either the cannot afford it or it sets a precedent that they'd rather avoid. You choosing to leave solves that problem. Whether it's constructive dismissal or not is debatable. They would argue that things change in business and they have made efforts to find you employment in the company following these changes. A good solicitor may be able to fight this but I would avoid going legal if you can. It will take ages and what you get at the end will almost always not seem worth the hassle.

You are under no obligation to accept a new role and a pay cut. The company is obligated to either find you a role maintaining your current salary or offer you redundancy.

I would start looking around and say no to the new role(s). See what happens.

Good luck.

[Jasandjules]

What were the terms of your secondment as a starting point?

[38911]

StevieBee said:

From your description, it appears to me that they are trying to avoid making your redundant because either the cannot afford it or it sets a precedent that they'd rather avoid.

Given how little Statutory Minimum Redundancy payout is, I doubt it’s because they can’t afford it. As for setting a precedent, in reality there is no such thing. A company can alter its redundancy terms pretty much at-will, providing they don’t go below stat min.

[StuVT]

38911 said:

StuVT said:

My expectations are that they will give me a role for lesser salary and I will then look elsewhere and leave, then I would very much like to do them for unfair dismissal. I should have added that to the original post. I'll go back and edit.

I wanted to know how to do it and whether it's a valid course of action.

Why would you "very much like to do them for unfair dismissal"? Bit of a daft comment to be honest, and suggests you don't exactly have a great attitude towards them - perhaps this is why you don't have a role?

Just refuse a pay cut. Tell them you'll do whatever role they want you to do, but aren't willing to accept a change to your contract of employment. They either find you a role on current salary, or make you redundant.

You're half right. They were an excellent company but over the last 6 months we have had over 20 core and long term staff leave all saying they were fed up with false promises, continually increasing time lines, bonus and commissions being held back for no clear reasons. Basically it's as if they have lost their way and think bullstting the staff will keep them loyal. I've been banging this drum for a couple of years. Every promise has proved to be a load of balls and here I am again at the point of needed info on my next step, the future role etc. The difference this time is the age old story of 'sit tight, you're experience is valuable and we just need this new dept signed off by the president' has turned into an almost flippant 'oh that. That's not happening' when pushed. The roles they have offered me are school leaver roles or roles so far out of my specialist areas and requiring quite specific qualifications in the subject matter that I cannot understand why they were even offered! I asked for more info on one of them and was told I don't have the experience or background! So why put it on the table! That's why I am looking at options including constructive dismissal. The uncertainty and lack of security for me and my family while, in hindsight I was stupid to trust what they were feeding me. People have a breaking point.

[StuVT]

StevieBee said:

From your description, it appears to me that they are trying to avoid making your redundant because either the cannot afford it or it sets a precedent that they'd rather avoid. You choosing to leave solves that problem. Whether it's constructive dismissal or not is debatable. They would argue that things change in business and they have made efforts to find you employment in the company following these changes. A good solicitor may be able to fight this but I would avoid going legal if you can. It will take ages and what you get at the end will almost always not seem worth the hassle.

You are under no obligation to accept a new role and a pay cut. The company is obligated to either find you a role maintaining your current salary or offer you redundancy.

I would start looking around and say no to the new role(s). See what happens.

Good luck.

Thanks StevieBee, they are my thoughts it's easier and cheaper for the company if I say sod it and move on. The way I feel I've been treated us why if there is no redundancy and I choose to leave I don't want it to be that easy for them.

Thank you for your comment, and thanks to everyone that have taken the time to reply. So many posts in such a short time on a subject which is very important to me is quite humbling. Thanks again.

[StevieBee]

38911 said:

StevieBee said:

From your description, it appears to me that they are trying to avoid making your redundant because either the cannot afford it or it sets a precedent that they'd rather avoid.

Given how little Statutory Minimum Redundancy payout is, I doubt it’s because they can’t afford it. As for setting a precedent, in reality there is no such thing. A company can alter its redundancy terms pretty much at-will, providing they don’t go below stat min.

This depends on the employment contract and company policies. Reading between the lines of the OP's situation, I wouldn't be surprised that at his current level, the redundancy package would cost the company a fair chunk but making him redundant from a lower level would place him into the realms you describe and cost the company less.

Either way a precedent would be set because it indicates to other staff that the company is willing make redundancies which will impact in them from morale to others requesting redundancy and generally creating unwelcome distraction.

[Sir Bagalot]

Looks like Redundancy to me, and they've spent the last 3 years moving you about hoping you'd leave.

You've been there 20 years so you're on 12 weeks notice, which they can ask you to actually work.

Redundancy pay is 1 weeks salary for every complete year you've worked, after the age of 40 you're entitled to 1.5 weeks money. A weeks money can be capped at £544 per week.

You have your current T&C's and Salary. They can reduce these but only with your agreement. A lesser package can be implemented but only with your agreement. You may have to tell them yourself that your position is Redundant and await their reaction

[darreni]

The burden of proof is different for unfair & constructive dismissal:

With unfair dismissal, it is for the employer to prove that you were not unfairly dismissed.
With constructive dismissal, it is for you to prove that you were constructively dismissed.

[SydneyBridge]

He would have to walk out to claim constructive dismissal and he does not want to do that

[condor]

Don't take the lower job and pay cut offer.
If still a pension based on final year salary - will badly affect this.
Ask for redundancy payment instead.
Move on and find another job instead of contemplating a constructive dismissal case.