Forced redundancies
Discussion
My wife works for '3' (mobile phone) who were recently taken over by Vodafone. '3' staff have been promised no redundancies which is good, but ...
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
The Gauge said:
My wife works for '3' (mobile phone) who were recently taken over by Vodafone. '3' staff have been promised no redundancies which is good, but ...
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
Think of the shareholders won't you?Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
The Gauge said:
then they will have to resign.
Can it be that simple? What would happen if they didn't resign?I'd imagine a big company like 3 will be following the rules, there's not much in it for them no to.
(Not like the small companies I worked for that shot from the hip & then dealt with the fall out).
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Can it be that simple? What would happen if they didn't resign?
I'd imagine a big company like 3 will be following the rules, there's not much in it for them no to.
(Not like the small companies I worked for that shot from the hip & then dealt with the fall out).
"Since your role moved to Ahmedabad, you have been absent from the office in 5 of the last 5 work days. This is unacceptable. You're fired."I'd imagine a big company like 3 will be following the rules, there's not much in it for them no to.
(Not like the small companies I worked for that shot from the hip & then dealt with the fall out).
The Gauge said:
My wife works for '3' (mobile phone) who were recently taken over by Vodafone. '3' staff have been promised no redundancies which is good, but ...
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
Do staff have a mobility clause in their contracts? Even if they do, it can still be unreasonable to insist they move.Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
redstar1 said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Can it be that simple? What would happen if they didn't resign?
I'd imagine a big company like 3 will be following the rules, there's not much in it for them no to.
(Not like the small companies I worked for that shot from the hip & then dealt with the fall out).
"Since your role moved to Ahmedabad, you have been absent from the office in 5 of the last 5 work days. This is unacceptable. You're fired."I'd imagine a big company like 3 will be following the rules, there's not much in it for them no to.
(Not like the small companies I worked for that shot from the hip & then dealt with the fall out).
The Gauge said:
My wife works for '3' (mobile phone) who were recently taken over by Vodafone. '3' staff have been promised no redundancies which is good, but ...
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no remuneration. Clever move by 3.
It sounds exactly like a redundancy situation to me (and very similar to what happened at a former Employer). Two sites were merged and back office staff were asked to eitherSome staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no remuneration. Clever move by 3.
1. relocate; or
2. redeploy into other roles; or
3. redundant
The role that I got at the time was because the person who had been doing my job in London didn't want to move to sunny Manchester and there wasn't a suitable role for them to be redeployed to, so they took a £125k payout. (They almost immediately got the same role at one of our competitors)
It usually goes something like:
- they create a list of people at risk who’s jobs are either going completely or multiple people have to apply for one position etc.
- all those at risk enter consultation, collective and individual. If more than 20 people they have to involve the union / employee reps and there s a minimum period before they can make the first person redundant. IIRC this is 30 days.
- the consultation should include all t&c’s and compensation clearly explained to those at risk.
- consultation should also clearly explain selection criteria for roles. This is done in conjunction with the reps and can vary. I.e there can be a cap on no. Of roles you can apply for, etc.
- if those at risk don’t fancy any role or are unsuccessful in their application, then they remain at risk if the are other roles available, but ultimately are on the path to redundancy.
- it is always, always, better to bail early. There should be no penalty financially and it may even be incentivised. But in terms of looking for the next role, you do not want to be late to market.
Sorry if I have it incorrect (likely) but I ve been through it more than once and it was along these lines. Not fun, and it always seems to be in the run up to Xmas, but it’s also not worth worrying over until you know whether or not you re at risk.
- they create a list of people at risk who’s jobs are either going completely or multiple people have to apply for one position etc.
- all those at risk enter consultation, collective and individual. If more than 20 people they have to involve the union / employee reps and there s a minimum period before they can make the first person redundant. IIRC this is 30 days.
- the consultation should include all t&c’s and compensation clearly explained to those at risk.
- consultation should also clearly explain selection criteria for roles. This is done in conjunction with the reps and can vary. I.e there can be a cap on no. Of roles you can apply for, etc.
- if those at risk don’t fancy any role or are unsuccessful in their application, then they remain at risk if the are other roles available, but ultimately are on the path to redundancy.
- it is always, always, better to bail early. There should be no penalty financially and it may even be incentivised. But in terms of looking for the next role, you do not want to be late to market.
Sorry if I have it incorrect (likely) but I ve been through it more than once and it was along these lines. Not fun, and it always seems to be in the run up to Xmas, but it’s also not worth worrying over until you know whether or not you re at risk.
Edited by shirt on Thursday 20th November 19:39
shirt said:
It usually goes something like:
- they create a list of people at risk who s jobs are either going completely or multiple people have to apply for one position etc.
- all those at risk enter consultation, collective and individual. If more than 20 people they have to involve the union / employee reps and there s a minimum period before they can make the first person redundant. IIRC this is 30 days.
- the consultation should include all t&c s and compensation clearly explained to those at risk.
- consultation should also clearly explain selection criteria for roles. This is done in conjunction with the reps and can vary. I.e there can be a cap on no. Of roles you can apply for, etc.
- if those at risk don t fancy any role or are unsuccessful in their application, then they remain at risk if the are other roles available, but ultimately are on the path to redundancy.
- it is always, always, better to bail early. There should be no penalty financially and it may even be incentivised. But in terms of looking for the next role, you do not want to be late to market.
Sorry if I have it incorrect (likely) but I ve been through it more than once and it was along these lines. Not fun, and it always seems to be in the run up to Xmas, but it s also not worth worrying over until you know whether or not you re at risk.
We had a union and it folded under the take it or we'll sack you all approach of the company. The head of the union is now the manager of the people he pretended to work for.- they create a list of people at risk who s jobs are either going completely or multiple people have to apply for one position etc.
- all those at risk enter consultation, collective and individual. If more than 20 people they have to involve the union / employee reps and there s a minimum period before they can make the first person redundant. IIRC this is 30 days.
- the consultation should include all t&c s and compensation clearly explained to those at risk.
- consultation should also clearly explain selection criteria for roles. This is done in conjunction with the reps and can vary. I.e there can be a cap on no. Of roles you can apply for, etc.
- if those at risk don t fancy any role or are unsuccessful in their application, then they remain at risk if the are other roles available, but ultimately are on the path to redundancy.
- it is always, always, better to bail early. There should be no penalty financially and it may even be incentivised. But in terms of looking for the next role, you do not want to be late to market.
Sorry if I have it incorrect (likely) but I ve been through it more than once and it was along these lines. Not fun, and it always seems to be in the run up to Xmas, but it s also not worth worrying over until you know whether or not you re at risk.
Edited by shirt on Thursday 20th November 19:39
Sickening.
The Gauge said:
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for.
That's the way things work if their existing position becomes redundant - i.e. is no longer needed.The Gauge said:
If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
No. They would be lawfully dismissed by reason of redundancy.The Gauge said:
...forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
No, they would receive the payments they are entitled to receive when dismissed by reason of redundancy. That's definitely "statutory redundancy pay" and either the right to work their notice period or payment in lieu of notice. The detail will depend upon what the contract of employment actually says and how many years they have worked. a340driver said:
We had a union and it folded under the take it or we'll sack you all approach of the company. The head of the union is now the manager of the people he pretended to work for.
Sickening.
I’m sure you have ill feelings, this is natural. As do/did I until I moved on.Sickening.
But to suggest any rep was told ‘accept x or we will initiate a situation where you can easily mince us through the courts and embarrass us in the papers’ is Internet fantasy.
The Gauge said:
My wife works for '3' (mobile phone) who were recently taken over by Vodafone. '3' staff have been promised no redundancies which is good, but ...
Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
Are you suggesting that TUPE will not apply? They do not have to resign do they really?? If their role does not exist then they are redundant.......Surely?Some staff will have to leave their job and move to another one, which they will have to apply for. If they are unsuccessful, or they can't/don't want to apply because the jobs are elsewhere in the country then they will have to resign.
This strikes me as forced redundancy with no renumeration. Clever move by 3.
The Gauge said:
So if they offer my wife a role she doesn t want, or can t reasonably accept, say in another city is that classed as redundancy where there might be a payment or could they tell her to just leave?
Different scenarios here.1. Vodafone say that your wife's job is moving to another city. This is a re-location and would be covered under TUPE. Unless she has a mobility clause in her contract, she can claim redundancy due to unreasonable expectation to relocate
2. Vodafone say that your wife's job is changing and re-locating. This means her job no longer exists and is being re-structured. She can apply for that new job if she wants to, but if she doesn't then her job is redundant. They cannot 'sack' her or force her to resign from the job she has.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff