Redundancy selection criteria confusion

[Purple845]

I was made redundant last month, but something is really bugging me and I would appreciate opinions.

I was the only person to be made redundant as my employer said my job title was different to everyone else, despite the roles being extremely similar and me previously doing other jobs not up for redundancy. There were two people with my job title and the other person was not in consultation as he scored higher on a matrix criteria scored before the consultation period.

This is what confuses me - I asked to see my scores and the criteria used was not based on my role, but on a role NOT made redundant. It says the role at the top of the page. How can they use this criteria if I’m being made redundant because I have a different job title? My boss said I was made redundant as there are clear differences between the roles but that makes no sense to me if they used the criteria for the non-redundant role....

I

[Gargamel]

based on this and your other thread you need proper legal advice.

Without the documentation I cannot give advice.

[Purple845]

Gargamel said:

based on this and your other thread you need proper legal advice.

Without the documentation I cannot give advice.

I’ve tried CAB and ACAS and both have been a bit useless. I’m not sure about paying out for an expensive lawyer as I’m not sure if i have a case or not. Really I’m just after opinions and experiences at the moment.

[blearyeyedboy]

Check your house insurance policy- some will come with legal cover for employment disputes. No need paying for professional advice if your insurers will do it for you.

Seriously though, ACAS and CAB won't cut it. Sometimes you just need to pay a solicitor.

[Gargamel]

most will give you a free hour to see if you have a case

[Sir Bagalot]

Purple845 said:

I’ve tried CAB and ACAS and both have been a bit useless. I’m not sure about paying out for an expensive lawyer as I’m not sure if i have a case or not. Really I’m just after opinions and experiences at the moment.

I had a case where I was of the opinion that the correct procedures hadn't been followed.

Thankfully I was able to have a conversation with someone that just cost me lunch and was told I had a good case, but to bring that case would cost money. I was told that if I won, after legal fees I might be up £0-5K on the deal. But I could lose. I was advised not to go after them, money and stress saved for a possible max £5K.

It was good advice.

[Jasandjules]

I would expect them to simply say "oh that was just the title on the form it was your role after all".........

[davek_964]

Note that I have zero legal knowledge - this is simply based on what happened at my last company.

Purple845 said:

This is what confuses me - I asked to see my scores and the criteria used was not based on my role, but on a role NOT made redundant.

Surely that's how it should be? There is no point scoring against your role - it has already been determined that your role is redundant. The company has identified that a single role remains and has considered two (or more) candidates for that role, and scored them for that role. In this case, your colleague scored higher than you and hence got the job.

We had similar scoring at my last company - about 2/3 of the office were made redundant. The positions that would remain were identified, job descriptions were created for them and people were scored against them - those that scored highest stayed.

[Purple845]

davek_964 said:

Note that I have zero legal knowledge - this is simply based on what happened at my last company.

Purple845 said:

This is what confuses me - I asked to see my scores and the criteria used was not based on my role, but on a role NOT made redundant.

Surely that's how it should be? There is no point scoring against your role - it has already been determined that your role is redundant. The company has identified that a single role remains and has considered two (or more) candidates for that role, and scored them for that role. In this case, your colleague scored higher than you and hence got the job.

We had similar scoring at my last company - about 2/3 of the office were made redundant. The positions that would remain were identified, job descriptions were created for them and people were scored against them - those that scored highest stayed.

The person is doing the role they were doing before, not the role on the criteria.

[davek_964]

Purple845 said:

davek_964 said:

Note that I have zero legal knowledge - this is simply based on what happened at my last company.

Purple845 said:

This is what confuses me - I asked to see my scores and the criteria used was not based on my role, but on a role NOT made redundant.

Surely that's how it should be? There is no point scoring against your role - it has already been determined that your role is redundant. The company has identified that a single role remains and has considered two (or more) candidates for that role, and scored them for that role. In this case, your colleague scored higher than you and hence got the job.

We had similar scoring at my last company - about 2/3 of the office were made redundant. The positions that would remain were identified, job descriptions were created for them and people were scored against them - those that scored highest stayed.

The person is doing the role they were doing before, not the role on the criteria.

Even so - scoring you against a role that is now redundant would not make sense.

Let's say I employ a chef and a cleaner - but I need to cut costs. I decide I still need my office cleaned, but will start using Tesco meal deal for lunch - so the chef needs to go. But since a single role will remain, I will score both employees to decide which would be most suitable / which to keep.

Scoring the chef against his cooking role is pointless. He might be a Michelin star chef. He might score max points on everything. But I no longer need a chef, so that's totally irrelevant. Instead, I need to score him against his skills as a cleaner. If he scores better than the existing cleaner, then he gets the job - if not, the cleaner stays.


I do think the person staying should be doing the role that you were both scored against, but unless it's very different to the role they were already doing I'm not sure how you know they're not doing that role? If it is very different, it might take time for them to transition - which I imagine is the excuse the company would use.

[Purple845]

davek_964 said:

Purple845 said:

davek_964 said:

Note that I have zero legal knowledge - this is simply based on what happened at my last company.

Purple845 said:

This is what confuses me - I asked to see my scores and the criteria used was not based on my role, but on a role NOT made redundant.

Surely that's how it should be? There is no point scoring against your role - it has already been determined that your role is redundant. The company has identified that a single role remains and has considered two (or more) candidates for that role, and scored them for that role. In this case, your colleague scored higher than you and hence got the job.

We had similar scoring at my last company - about 2/3 of the office were made redundant. The positions that would remain were identified, job descriptions were created for them and people were scored against them - those that scored highest stayed.

The person is doing the role they were doing before, not the role on the criteria.

Even so - scoring you against a role that is now redundant would not make sense.

Let's say I employ a chef and a cleaner - but I need to cut costs. I decide I still need my office cleaned, but will start using Tesco meal deal for lunch - so the chef needs to go. But since a single role will remain, I will score both employees to decide which would be most suitable / which to keep.

Scoring the chef against his cooking role is pointless. He might be a Michelin star chef. He might score max points on everything. But I no longer need a chef, so that's totally irrelevant. Instead, I need to score him against his skills as a cleaner. If he scores better than the existing cleaner, then he gets the job - if not, the cleaner stays.


I do think the person staying should be doing the role that you were both scored against, but unless it's very different to the role they were already doing I'm not sure how you know they're not doing that role? If it is very different, it might take time for them to transition - which I imagine is the excuse the company would use.

But that’s not the situation here. The situation would be if you had two cleaners but only wanted one cleaner, so you had to decide which one to make redundant, and then using a chef criteria to decide which cleaner would stay and be a cleaner.