Potential redundancy... Please help
Discussion
I've just received an email today from my employer informing me of a meeting regarding potential redundancies to be held tomorrow morning. I know the consultation procedure well, having gone through and survived the process twice within a short period a couple of years back.
The current scenario I am faced with and cannot find any meaningful information from internet searches is: My employer took on a consultant to help out around 12 months ago. Now this was for the same site based supervisory position that I have been in for over 7 years and we worked together as a team. He is very competent at his job, but now he has managed to get a 12 month follow on project (which was bid for and won by my employer) that I could happily have managed as it's a relatively small scheme compared to the last 7 years site work.
So - what are the legal implications of making a full time employee of 13 years redundant and using an external consultant instead (who is charging £90,000 per annum - which is over 2.5x my salary and makes a mockery of any cost savings)? I would think that my employer should be offering their own staff the work rather than outsourcing to a third party.
I might add that I have never had any complaints about my work and indeed have received praise from our client and team manager on numerous occasions.
Any advice from those who know would be really gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
The current scenario I am faced with and cannot find any meaningful information from internet searches is: My employer took on a consultant to help out around 12 months ago. Now this was for the same site based supervisory position that I have been in for over 7 years and we worked together as a team. He is very competent at his job, but now he has managed to get a 12 month follow on project (which was bid for and won by my employer) that I could happily have managed as it's a relatively small scheme compared to the last 7 years site work.
So - what are the legal implications of making a full time employee of 13 years redundant and using an external consultant instead (who is charging £90,000 per annum - which is over 2.5x my salary and makes a mockery of any cost savings)? I would think that my employer should be offering their own staff the work rather than outsourcing to a third party.
I might add that I have never had any complaints about my work and indeed have received praise from our client and team manager on numerous occasions.
Any advice from those who know would be really gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
Yes - apparently it was a done deal by the previous manager who was removed from the project late last year for unrelated issues.
My question is whether or not a company can get rid of employees if there is work available for them, which they then choose to give to outside sources.
I have tried speaking to my line manager at head office, but am just being told that this consultant is going to be managing the follow on project. I don't want to create a big scene at the meeting today if they are quite within their rights to do this.
My employer has been very poor in keeping me informed of the situation despite me repeatedly contacting them to ask what I would be doing when my current site based role is complete. I was even at a conference with them two weeks ago and none of this was mentioned despite me asking again.
My question is whether or not a company can get rid of employees if there is work available for them, which they then choose to give to outside sources.
I have tried speaking to my line manager at head office, but am just being told that this consultant is going to be managing the follow on project. I don't want to create a big scene at the meeting today if they are quite within their rights to do this.
My employer has been very poor in keeping me informed of the situation despite me repeatedly contacting them to ask what I would be doing when my current site based role is complete. I was even at a conference with them two weeks ago and none of this was mentioned despite me asking again.
58warren said:
I've just received an email today from my employer informing me of a meeting regarding potential redundancies to be held tomorrow morning. I know the consultation procedure well, having gone through and survived the process twice within a short period a couple of years back.
The current scenario I am faced with and cannot find any meaningful information from internet searches is: My employer took on a consultant to help out around 12 months ago. Now this was for the same site based supervisory position that I have been in for over 7 years and we worked together as a team. He is very competent at his job, but now he has managed to get a 12 month follow on project (which was bid for and won by my employer) that I could happily have managed as it's a relatively small scheme compared to the last 7 years site work.
So - what are the legal implications of making a full time employee of 13 years redundant and using an external consultant instead (who is charging £90,000 per annum - which is over 2.5x my salary and makes a mockery of any cost savings)? I would think that my employer should be offering their own staff the work rather than outsourcing to a third party.
I might add that I have never had any complaints about my work and indeed have received praise from our client and team manager on numerous occasions.
Any advice from those who know would be really gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
Are you in a Union? If not, your Employer is trying to sack you to be blunt.Sorry.The current scenario I am faced with and cannot find any meaningful information from internet searches is: My employer took on a consultant to help out around 12 months ago. Now this was for the same site based supervisory position that I have been in for over 7 years and we worked together as a team. He is very competent at his job, but now he has managed to get a 12 month follow on project (which was bid for and won by my employer) that I could happily have managed as it's a relatively small scheme compared to the last 7 years site work.
So - what are the legal implications of making a full time employee of 13 years redundant and using an external consultant instead (who is charging £90,000 per annum - which is over 2.5x my salary and makes a mockery of any cost savings)? I would think that my employer should be offering their own staff the work rather than outsourcing to a third party.
I might add that I have never had any complaints about my work and indeed have received praise from our client and team manager on numerous occasions.
Any advice from those who know would be really gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
It sounds like it's OK, but I'm not an employer, legal advisor or anything other than a lay person
The reason I say it's OK could well be for operational reasons, your role can be made redundant, the consultant can be fulfilling a different role (after all, there's two of you now) and short term changes that he's doing could well be in the scope of business requirements. You'll likely never get a completely honest answer from anyone, no-one does.
The thing is, if you go in waving paper around it only really ends one way, so you'd probably be best to listen to what they're saying then base your response around that.
The reason I say it's OK could well be for operational reasons, your role can be made redundant, the consultant can be fulfilling a different role (after all, there's two of you now) and short term changes that he's doing could well be in the scope of business requirements. You'll likely never get a completely honest answer from anyone, no-one does.
The thing is, if you go in waving paper around it only really ends one way, so you'd probably be best to listen to what they're saying then base your response around that.
It's not clear from the post whether the announcement is a general 'there are going to be redundancies, we are starting consultation' or whether it's a 'your role is at risk of redundancy' personal conversation. Even, if it is the latter, then you should bring this issue up and explain that there is a continuing need for your role or a very similar role for which you are equally skilled and experienced to do, namely that of the 'consultant'. They may well be terminating the consultant too. This is why there is a consultation period as it allows for you to understand the bigger business picture and ask the right questions to see which bits of the jigsaw puzzle go where.
This sort of thing happens all the time in IT. Contractors/Consultants (I'm one) in working on one project, while competent FTE's are being made redundant.
I suspect this means its legal, however morally it should be the contractors that go. That's part of why we get paid a higher daily, we "get made redundant" regularly.
I suspect this means its legal, however morally it should be the contractors that go. That's part of why we get paid a higher daily, we "get made redundant" regularly.
98elise said:
This sort of thing happens all the time in IT. Contractors/Consultants (I'm one) in working on one project, while competent FTE's are being made redundant.
I suspect this means its legal, however morally it should be the contractors that go. That's part of why we get paid a higher daily, we "get made redundant" regularly.
You do but the simple fact that you are also easier to hire and fire is worth the money to many empolyers.I suspect this means its legal, however morally it should be the contractors that go. That's part of why we get paid a higher daily, we "get made redundant" regularly.
You come moaning about how you don't like your desk, turn up late, leave early, have a bout of depression that requires you to be on the sick for 2 weeks everytime someone has the cheek to tell you to buck your ideas up and stop pissing about (when it is common knowledge that you are the company's weakest link due to your piss poor work ethic and attitude) and the employer gets to tell you to take a hike without £X0,000 having to be set aside to fight/pay out on any tribunal claims.
I am aware that many companies are no longer hiring full time employees, but are only offering 1-3 year contracts. How this will flow through employment law wise when the employee is on their 3rd contract extension i am not sure (not my field).
What kind of employers are these people who only hire contractors.No loyalty or security why should anybody give a toss.Didn't this idea came from the States?Train somebody up for six weeks and they are skilled in a trade.Apprentices disappeared and we started calling plumbers Engineers.No wonder we have no manufacturing base left.
OP - it seems financial madness to employ a Consultant on 3x your salary to do the same job you're doing if you're both doing the same work to the same standard? 
Maybe a conversation explaining this to HR or somebody at Director-level might be beneficial? I say this because managers sometimes make decisions to get an easy life but which are detrimental to the Company and it doesnt always get picked up in budget reports.
Maybe a conversation explaining this to HR or somebody at Director-level might be beneficial? I say this because managers sometimes make decisions to get an easy life but which are detrimental to the Company and it doesnt always get picked up in budget reports.
The answer to the legal question is that an employer can lawfully make an employee redundant and use a contractor to provide the services formerly provided by the employee. This is a business judgment for the employer, and employment tribunals do not review business judgments.
The question is not whether there is work to be done, but whether the employer has a need for an employee to do that work. The employer can decide to arrange its business so that the work is done by a non employee.
In many cases, but not all, outsourcing will involve a transfer of undertaking, and that raises issues of its own.
The question is not whether there is work to be done, but whether the employer has a need for an employee to do that work. The employer can decide to arrange its business so that the work is done by a non employee.
In many cases, but not all, outsourcing will involve a transfer of undertaking, and that raises issues of its own.
Rude-boy said:
I am aware that many companies are no longer hiring full time employees, but are only offering 1-3 year contracts. How this will flow through employment law wise when the employee is on their 3rd contract extension i am not sure (not my field).
depends if it is uninterurpted service or not - keeping peopl,e on a sucession of Fixed term contracts does not reduce their accumulated service vs having them on a permament contract unless they are laid for a period of time at the end of each contract .Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff