Got 2 roles within a company, 1 is being made redundant
Discussion
Around a year ago, my missus was told she was at risk of redundancy due to a restructure within her department. During the consultation it actually emerged that there was a need for her to stay working as a PA for 2 directors (splitting her time 50/50 between the two, and her salary was paid equally from the two different budgets). She accepted this and thought her job was safe.
Fast forward to now and 1 of the directors (Director A) has been replaced, while Director B has been on maternity leave, due to return in a month or so.
Director A, being new, has decided to restructure her team and has decided that she doesn't need a PA, but they do need a team Administrator (a full time role on less money that my missus is currently on). So the other half is again "at risk" with her formal consultation meeting this friday.
Now, the redundancy she will be offered is pretty good (3 weeks per year with no cap, she's been there for 6 years), and she will probably take it. However, I'm slightly curious as to the legal position given that only half of her job is being made redundant?
Director B (who has been on maternity) was told nothing of this beforehand, so it's almost as if they expected her to still turn up 2.5 days a week to work for Director B?! There also seems to be an assumption that she will accept the administrator role rather than take redundancy, so maybe they thought she'd cover the PA role to Director B as well? All this we hope to find out on friday.
Anyone got any thoughts on this? If director B wants to keep her on (no reason why not), can she be made redundant? Is she only being made "half redundant"?!
Thanks for any thoughts in advance.
Fast forward to now and 1 of the directors (Director A) has been replaced, while Director B has been on maternity leave, due to return in a month or so.
Director A, being new, has decided to restructure her team and has decided that she doesn't need a PA, but they do need a team Administrator (a full time role on less money that my missus is currently on). So the other half is again "at risk" with her formal consultation meeting this friday.
Now, the redundancy she will be offered is pretty good (3 weeks per year with no cap, she's been there for 6 years), and she will probably take it. However, I'm slightly curious as to the legal position given that only half of her job is being made redundant?
Director B (who has been on maternity) was told nothing of this beforehand, so it's almost as if they expected her to still turn up 2.5 days a week to work for Director B?! There also seems to be an assumption that she will accept the administrator role rather than take redundancy, so maybe they thought she'd cover the PA role to Director B as well? All this we hope to find out on friday.
Anyone got any thoughts on this? If director B wants to keep her on (no reason why not), can she be made redundant? Is she only being made "half redundant"?!
Thanks for any thoughts in advance.
Hi
A similar kind of thing happened to my old dear a while back (probably over ten years now), and even though I can't remember the exact scenario - it was effectively her being made redundant to allow for two cheaper part timers to take her place. I think that she argued she'd rather continue working there than retire and then things started getting silly with the management trying to force her out and being childish etc at the same time.
She therefore went along to the CAB and / or tribunal place, looked at a case for constructive dismissal (if I remember rightly) and eventually won. She probably had a fairly strong case as she ran / was the accounts dept on her own and therefore it was going to be hard for the company to say that there was no longer a requirement for that work / position. It was pretty obvious what they were doing and it seems a similar situation with what you described.
Its important that you know she obviously ended up leaving anyway and I don't know how the pay out from winning the tribunal compared to any redunancy that she was offered. You really have to figure out what is best for you.
Once you know all the facts, if you aren't happy and feel like you are being treated like s
t, I don't think that there is any harm in having a meeting with the relevant people to find out your options.
Although another important point is that tribunals are long winded, very involved and can be emotional / draining - sometimes it would be very unnecessary to put yourself through this kind of stress and you are better off concentrating your efforts elsewhere. Plus you get nothing until the end of the process (*) when you may get less than offered as redundancy or worse end up with nothing.
(*) If you find other work in the mean time the deciding tribunal will often see this as a reduction in the effect that the whole thing has had on you and therefore be slightly more leniant on the 'offending' employer - particularly likely in these times perhaps, with thoughts of the local economy etc. Be careful not to let a vendetta / pay back cloud yor judgement on what is best for you and your family.
Often in these scenarios, you are better off taking what the company has offered and leaving on good terms, getting a glowing reference and finding new work easier, with a guaranteed and up front lump sum to keep you sweet. You have to not look at it as allowing them to win but that you are both winners rather than just you. Chances are if their intention is to get rid of you for cost saving or whatever other purpose - you are going one way or another and why not keep things as stress free and financially stable as possible?!
A similar kind of thing happened to my old dear a while back (probably over ten years now), and even though I can't remember the exact scenario - it was effectively her being made redundant to allow for two cheaper part timers to take her place. I think that she argued she'd rather continue working there than retire and then things started getting silly with the management trying to force her out and being childish etc at the same time.
She therefore went along to the CAB and / or tribunal place, looked at a case for constructive dismissal (if I remember rightly) and eventually won. She probably had a fairly strong case as she ran / was the accounts dept on her own and therefore it was going to be hard for the company to say that there was no longer a requirement for that work / position. It was pretty obvious what they were doing and it seems a similar situation with what you described.
Its important that you know she obviously ended up leaving anyway and I don't know how the pay out from winning the tribunal compared to any redunancy that she was offered. You really have to figure out what is best for you.
Once you know all the facts, if you aren't happy and feel like you are being treated like s
t, I don't think that there is any harm in having a meeting with the relevant people to find out your options.Although another important point is that tribunals are long winded, very involved and can be emotional / draining - sometimes it would be very unnecessary to put yourself through this kind of stress and you are better off concentrating your efforts elsewhere. Plus you get nothing until the end of the process (*) when you may get less than offered as redundancy or worse end up with nothing.
(*) If you find other work in the mean time the deciding tribunal will often see this as a reduction in the effect that the whole thing has had on you and therefore be slightly more leniant on the 'offending' employer - particularly likely in these times perhaps, with thoughts of the local economy etc. Be careful not to let a vendetta / pay back cloud yor judgement on what is best for you and your family.
Often in these scenarios, you are better off taking what the company has offered and leaving on good terms, getting a glowing reference and finding new work easier, with a guaranteed and up front lump sum to keep you sweet. You have to not look at it as allowing them to win but that you are both winners rather than just you. Chances are if their intention is to get rid of you for cost saving or whatever other purpose - you are going one way or another and why not keep things as stress free and financially stable as possible?!
How 50/50 is her current role? Does she actually have 2 job titles, 2 desks, and an even and specifc alloted/amount of time for each 'role'? Or, does she have 1 desk and the 2 roles are 'rolled' (excuse the pun) into one?
Also, with regard any potential redundancy, I presume from your post that she has had the initial letter and the meeting on Friday is the individual consultation(?) When does the consultation period end, and is she the only member of the department in the consultation?
Also, with regard any potential redundancy, I presume from your post that she has had the initial letter and the meeting on Friday is the individual consultation(?) When does the consultation period end, and is she the only member of the department in the consultation?
Many thanks for both responses. In answer to the following questions:
I guess you could say that in theory her time should be split 50/50 between the 2 directors, but in practice it hasn't been due to one director not being around.
scirocco265 said:
How 50/50 is her current role? Does she actually have 2 job titles, 2 desks, and an even and specifc alloted/amount of time for each 'role'? Or, does she have 1 desk and the 2 roles are 'rolled' (excuse the pun) into one?
Her roles are supposed to be 50/50, but due to one of the director being on maternity leave, in effect role B has probably been less that 5% of her time (there's not much call for a personal assistant when you're not working!). Her job title is PA to xxxxx and PA to xxxxx (where xxxx is the role of the 2 respective directors). So I guess 1 job title, but her salary is paid 50/50 from the 2 director's budgets. The 2 directors have complimentary roles in the same office, so 1 desk.I guess you could say that in theory her time should be split 50/50 between the 2 directors, but in practice it hasn't been due to one director not being around.
scirocco265 said:
Also, with regard any potential redundancy, I presume from your post that she has had the initial letter and the meeting on Friday is the individual consultation(?) When does the consultation period end, and is she the only member of the department in the consultation?
Yes, she had the initial letter last week and today is her individual consultation. Consultation period was said to be 4 weeks, so ends in a fortnight. And yes I believe she is the only person going through this consultation.wiggy001 said:
Her job title is PA to xxxxx and PA to xxxxx (where xxxx is the role of the 2 respective directors).
Remember that it is not the employee that is made redundant, but the role. Unfortunately, it sounds like her role is being made redundant due to a cessation of need. For example, if I was a Customer Service and Aftersales Manager, and the Aftersales became outsourced/ceased etc, then the Company I was working for would have to make me redundant in my role of Customer Service and Aftersales Manager, and instead offer me a Customer Service Manager role (if available) or an alternative....Are there any suitable roles for her on the vacancy list?
Just a quick update to this...
OH had her consultation where basically they assumed she would take a step backwards and take the job as team administrator. They were genuinely shocked when she said she'd rather leave and take her payout.
However, it now appears that Director B is losing her job (hence why not much was mentioned of OH still being Director B's PA).
So, Director B goes on maternity, Director A is recruited, Director B is made redundant!
That one will end in a big payout methinks!
OH had her consultation where basically they assumed she would take a step backwards and take the job as team administrator. They were genuinely shocked when she said she'd rather leave and take her payout.
However, it now appears that Director B is losing her job (hence why not much was mentioned of OH still being Director B's PA).
So, Director B goes on maternity, Director A is recruited, Director B is made redundant!
That one will end in a big payout methinks!
Go online to the ACAS website, you'll get free, accurate and upto date advice, they also have a telephone helpline where you can loosely talk through the situation.
My wife has used them a few times in the past and they've always been very helpful.
On a seperate note the consultation stated it was for half the role, where in fact her whole role is at risk so in reality the consultation should be started again
My wife has used them a few times in the past and they've always been very helpful.
On a seperate note the consultation stated it was for half the role, where in fact her whole role is at risk so in reality the consultation should be started again
As already stated, how a company internally budgets for an employees role is nothing to do with how the employee is viewed legally. Unless she receives separate pay packets, formally via HMRC declares 1 role as her main job for NI purposes and has 2 contracts, she is 1 person doing 1 job.
With regards to how the company has carried out the consultation period, if the original consulation included the redundancy of the director currently on maternity leave, and they have offered an alternative position, they have complied with redundancy procedures.
Does your OH know/had explained the full history of the reasons behind the redundancy? Why was the original director A replaced and when? This may be a factor in claiming for a protective award from the company, if it is shown that the company had delayed the starting of a consultation period (as surely director B has been on maternity leave for a great deal of time longer than a minimum consultation period).
With regards to how the company has carried out the consultation period, if the original consulation included the redundancy of the director currently on maternity leave, and they have offered an alternative position, they have complied with redundancy procedures.
Does your OH know/had explained the full history of the reasons behind the redundancy? Why was the original director A replaced and when? This may be a factor in claiming for a protective award from the company, if it is shown that the company had delayed the starting of a consultation period (as surely director B has been on maternity leave for a great deal of time longer than a minimum consultation period).
Gusanita said:
I didn't think that there was much you could do if they followed the correct avenues. I was made redundant whilst on maternity leave and from all the people I talked to, it was all perfectly legal.
Yes, it's perfectly valid to make a role redundant at any time, regardless of whether the person in the role is on maternity. However the company then has to offer any alternative role to the person on maternity. Only if there is no alternative role can the person on maternity be made redundant. So it's perfectly possible to do, but only to be done with great care.GeraldSmith said:
Yes, it's perfectly valid to make a role redundant at any time, regardless of whether the person in the role is on maternity. However the company then has to offer any alternative role to the person on maternity. Only if there is no alternative role can the person on maternity be made redundant. So it's perfectly possible to do, but only to be done with great care.
Well we think my OH's role being made redundant is pretty legit and probably won't take things further (she's waiting to hear back regarding an interview she had last week, so fingers crossed we won't care too much soon!).But Gerald's point above is the same as mine - surely they can't (legally) make Director B's role redundant when they've recently employed Director A (regardless of whether B was on maternity or not). Especially as I know how similar the 2 Director's roles are and that Director B used to cover a lot of what Director A now does, so being skilled for the remaining role is not an issue.
I believe at the very least B should have been interviewed for role A?
Anyway, thanks for all the comments and advice on this, it has been useful to us both
wiggy001 said:
But Gerald's point above is the same as mine - surely they can't (legally) make Director B's role redundant when they've recently employed Director A (regardless of whether B was on maternity or not). Especially as I know how similar the 2 Director's roles are and that Director B used to cover a lot of what Director A now does, so being skilled for the remaining role is not an issue.
I believe at the very least B should have been interviewed for role A?
Does your missus know the full details of what's gone on? Are these people "proper" owner/Directors. or just managers with fancy job titles?I believe at the very least B should have been interviewed for role A?
Chances are Director B has been paid off (either willingly or otherwise).
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff