Unfair dismissal?

[Rich1973]

The company I work for is in the process of making people redundent. I have just been through a month consultation period which has involved 5 people applying for 3 new positions with a new job title.

We went through an interview process and myself and a colleague were unsuccessful. We had the final meeting yesterday, and it has been confirmed that my position is now redundent.

One of the successful applicants was on maternity leave from may last year to january this. The consultation period started 25th feb.

It has come to light that the lady that was on maternity leave received a letter from the HR department assuring her of a new position due to not being able to discriminate against her due to the maternity. She was not to tell anybody, and the interview would merely be a formality.

The letter was received prior to the interviews.

Obviously this has now come to light and I asked questions about it in my meeting yesterday. I was told that she still scored in the top 3 at interview and that the company had received advice from their solicitor that the letter must remain confidential.

My colleague and I are both of the opinion that we were chosen for redundency before the process began anyway and that the company has authenticated the process by going through the correct motions just to be seen to have done things correctly.

Do we have grounds to argue unfair dismissal (even though the company can show we scored in the bottom two) on the grounds that there were actually four people applying for two jobs, as opposed to three for five?

It would appear that a company can make a person who is on maternity leave redundent anyway, even though she was back from it anyway.
This all appears to be a big stitch-up to me and was wondering what my chances would be in an ET?

Thanks

Rich

[softtop]

One of life's lessons. You need to move on and make a new career elsewhere. You have no basis for saying their scoring is incorrect. I know it sounds harsh, many have been before you in this situation.

[davepoth]

It sounds a bit iffy to me. They are certainly allowed to make someone redundant while on maternity leave, but it's a pretty much guaranteed industrial tribunal. They've attempted to take the easy way out, but I would say you might have some luck at getting a better settlement out of them. Read up on "compromise agreements" and contact a lawyer.

[boomboompow]

How did you find out about the letter?

[Rydal]

The maternity leave may be a bit of a red herring as she seems to have returned to work by the time the redundancy situation arose. Had she faced redundancy whilst still on leave then she would almost certainly have been entitled to be offered one of the three new jobs but having returned to work she would have lost that right to take priority over others.
As such I can see no justification for them favouring her over others. If you could get hold of the letter I would suggest that you may well have a potential discrimination claim yourself.

Also, because she had been absent from work for a time the employers may have had difficulty scoring her against those who had been at work. It is worth checking that her scores were not inflated in any way through the employers giving her 'the benefit of the doubt' in an effort not to discriminate. If so this too could give rise to a claim, see http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/05/18/...

Even if this were to have happened you would have to assess whether more accurate scoring would have avoided your selection, if not you would not expect any compensation for lost earnings although you should still be entitled to an award for injury to feelings.

Check your home insurance for legal expenses insurances and if you have it contact them. You only have three months from your last day to make a claim so do this sooner rather than later.

[softtop]

when organisations make individuals redundant then one factor is cost. If two people are similar in capability and one costs £30,000 to go and the other £10,000 then guess which stays and which one goes based on the capability matrix you have had completed?

[Rich1973]

Well here is the thing. The two of us which are going have approx 22 years experience between us. We are the 2nd & 3rd most long standing staff members and are not the cheapest to get rid of. The selection process involed the company making the assumption that we are all equally capable of doing the job. This is very clearly not the case, and the 2 of us going were pretty much the most capable pair.
The whole thing reeks of internal politics and a set up.
We found out about the letter as the lady that was on maternity leave accidently let it slip, and then gave further details about it when quizzed.

Richard

[Mannginger]

Move on I'd say. The maternity leave piece is essentially irrelevant to you as the woman was back from her leave and has scored higher in whatever skills, knowledge and experience interview/process that your company followed.

I acknowledge that it's easy for me to write this without the worries that you must be feeling but on face-value this doesn't seem like anything to try a (lengthy and costly) unfair dismissal claim over. IMO you'll be much better (and healthier) focussing your energies on finding a new role where you can put your skills to good use.

[M400 NBL]

You need to find out what criteria was used to calculate who would be made redundancy.

Usually it's skills, service years, and attendance / disciplinary records. I represented the factory staff when my last employer were making redundancues so I made sure that it was done fairly. Do you have a union or someone representing all the staff at risk?

But being made redundant isn't the end of the world so stay possitive if that does happen. And best of luck. I've benefitted a few times from being made redundant. Financially I did well with the pay offs but more importantly i'm happier than every where i'm working now.

[Mannginger]

I read it as the woman received assurances over redundancy whilst she was on Maternity leave but due to the fact that she'd returned from Maternity when the process started, she was put in the mix and scored higher - have I misunderstood that?

[Rich1973]

Yes Swerni you are correct. She returned to work mid january and the consultation period began at the end of feb. Her letter was received during the consultation period.
From what i gather, the criteria for selection was based purely on being a good fit personality wise for the new role. Qualifications, time served, attendance and disiplinary records were not taken into account at all.

Richard

[paddy27]

Rich1973 said:

Yes Swerni you are correct. She returned to work mid january and the consultation period began at the end of feb. Her letter was received during the consultation period.
From what i gather, the criteria for selection was based purely on being a good fit personality wise for the new role. Qualifications, time served, attendance and disiplinary records were not taken into account at all.

Richard

Then i would say they have not done the correct process at all. They followed the proper process when i was let go last year, Skils, time served etc. Went though it with my solicitor.
I would recommed you got one ASAP. Saves a lot of grief and mine told me how they should have done it.
Good luck.
I was out of work for three months, now back in work with a much better job in a better company so worked well for me in the end.

[davepoth]

swerni said:

She sued and they settled out, they always do.

Even if there are no grounds for a tribunal, they usually settle. It's cheaper than a tribunal.

[M400 NBL]

Rich1973 said:

Yes Swerni you are correct. She returned to work mid january and the consultation period began at the end of feb. Her letter was received during the consultation period.
From what i gather, the criteria for selection was based purely on being a good fit personality wise for the new role. Qualifications, time served, attendance and disiplinary records were not taken into account at all.

Richard

They will have used a criteria that can be measured. Personality is too grey an area so they must use (at least) skills / results, service, disciplinary / time keeping & attendance.