How would you term this?

[andy-xr]

Cant work out the term for whats going on here, maybe someone could help? No suggestion of anything untoward as yet, just not sure how to position it

Short version: Remote worker contract employee, external sales, home based. Company wants to make the role office based, revise the salary and comms £20k lower, nearest local office 150 miles away.

Employee welcome to apply for role, but no travel payments on offer. Possible parting package as option 2, TBC on figures

[andy-xr]

Thanks

It's an interesting one and taking emotion away from the situation I can understand the reasoning for doing what they're doing. It seems that a 3-months-pay parting offer is Option 2. Trying to work out whether thats reasonable, it's above and beyond statutory I realise

[andy-xr]

Thanks, I'm torn between reckoning it's an opener and whether there's some room to move, or whether thats as good as it gets. Decisions decision....

It's a small local team of a worldwide organisation, just the 1 role needs tweaking in the UK

[andy-xr]

I'm not entirely sure this is redundancy - it feels like there's been some avoidance of the word in the conversations I've been having. I think Restructure is probably more like whats happening, and thats OK too. In my mind I'm the one who they dont want to work there anymore, it's not through my choice and I'd carry on working there if I could. As long as I'm not penalised or unfairly treated then they can call it what they want

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 31st May 17:30

[andy-xr]

zaphod42 said:

If I could pra-phrase... is this the scenario?

They want to harmonise all roles against a standard.You are in a unique role (home based) and on a different package from the "standard role".
They have approached you with a compromise agreement to offer you the chance to terminate your employment on a highly compensated basis.
They want to be able to recruit to your role in the office environment on the harmonised terms without anyone crying foul that the role had been made redundant.
They have made an opening offer and are being constructive, but avoiding the phrase "redundant" at all costs.

90% true. Others who work there are remote workers too, but they have different roles to me. It's the specific job I'm doing thats being changed as part of a restructure. I've been offered the option of applying to this new role, no guarantee I'd get it as I'd have to interview same as anyone else, but due to distance and reduction of money it's not a viable option for me. So it's likely going to be filled by AN Other who'll be recruited from outside the company.

They've made an opening offer which has some consideration to the length of service and appear to be being constructive. No-one's brought up the word redundancy yet, but I'd stick a fiver on everyone thinking it

[andy-xr]

GeraldSmith said:

From your perspective the best course of action is probably to negotiate and see what you can get from them in termination. But bear in mind that they can't just restructure and change your role in this way without your agreement or without going through the redundancy process.

Bit of movement recently on this one, offered voluntary redundancy in a not so voluntary way, but thats what they want to call it. Welcome to apply for it subject to contract, with an unattractive separation offer as well as PILON and holidays

Because I'm just one guy, I'm not sure whether the rules that would apply to a collective redundancy situation would be applicable to me, but I'm still not convinced they've gone about it in the right order.

Is there anything pre-defined that they should have done re consultation do you know?

IE consult, say that there's the possibility the role might be made redundant, then look at what else I could do, rather than say I wont be doing what I'm doing anymore, offer me a job thats no-where near what I was doing and send in a magic circle firm as option 2?