What is fair selection process for redundancy?
Discussion
Covid-19 related redundancies happening at work. No one to blame for that, but not sure my company are approaching this legally.
So, the scenario is, a whole department of 100 is going down to 50.
That department is made up of people in different roles e.g. software engineer, designer, product manager etc.
At the moment, the dept is split in to squads. Each squad has different roles within it.
The business has informally shared with the management team that some squads are at risk, but others are not. This is despite the fact that people working in one squad have the same types of skills as people in another squad.
By implication - a software engineer could be made redundant because their squad is being removed - but the same software engineer in another squad won't be risk.
I would have thought that all would be at risk, and put in a redundancy pool - irrespective of squad - and then selection applied on fair criteria. Instead, the pool seems to be determined according to what team you are currently in (which tend to change every 6 months anyway).
Any advice appreciated, obviously worrying times.....
Cheers
So, the scenario is, a whole department of 100 is going down to 50.
That department is made up of people in different roles e.g. software engineer, designer, product manager etc.
At the moment, the dept is split in to squads. Each squad has different roles within it.
The business has informally shared with the management team that some squads are at risk, but others are not. This is despite the fact that people working in one squad have the same types of skills as people in another squad.
By implication - a software engineer could be made redundant because their squad is being removed - but the same software engineer in another squad won't be risk.
I would have thought that all would be at risk, and put in a redundancy pool - irrespective of squad - and then selection applied on fair criteria. Instead, the pool seems to be determined according to what team you are currently in (which tend to change every 6 months anyway).
Any advice appreciated, obviously worrying times.....
Cheers
Edited by alolympic on Wednesday 10th June 09:08
That seems a sensible way of going about things, though I dont know the legalities of it. Keep your high performing and profitable teams unmolested, and those valuable employees who are currently stuck in bad teams can apply for open positions. 50/100 redundancies is a deep cut though, you have my sympathies.
Its a tricky one. We are making about 250 redundancies with circa 500 people in the pool. We have people with similar job titles but quite different roles across a range of specialisms.
We have decided to look at the specialist skills and re-deploy those where we can but some sectors we work for will be a long time in coming back so some skill sets we won't need even though their title is the same as some we will need.
We have decided to look at the specialist skills and re-deploy those where we can but some sectors we work for will be a long time in coming back so some skill sets we won't need even though their title is the same as some we will need.
blueg33 said:
Its a tricky one. We are making about 250 redundancies with circa 500 people in the pool. We have people with similar job titles but quite different roles across a range of specialisms.
We have decided to look at the specialist skills and re-deploy those where we can but some sectors we work for will be a long time in coming back so some skill sets we won't need even though their title is the same as some we will need.
Ouch!We have decided to look at the specialist skills and re-deploy those where we can but some sectors we work for will be a long time in coming back so some skill sets we won't need even though their title is the same as some we will need.
That seems to be on the side of 'fair' as it assessment based on 'skills' which are now not required - and everyone has been put in the pool.
In my example, we can assume the skills are the same, it is merely a matter of where the individuals have been allocated -meaning some are in the pool, and some aren't, even though their skills and experience may be comparable at least.
They want to limit the impact, I respect that. And, they certainly won't want to put the whole department at risk - but I feel like they may need to, otherwise cases for unfair dismissal could well be the result.
There are many people in the 'safe' squads with less than 2 years service - some even still in their probation. Wheras some in the 'at risk' squads have more than 2 years experience and therefore redundancy rights.
What you are describing is called pooling. The process would then have selection criteria to identify those at risk and who then carry on through the remainder of the process with further individual consultations.
With 50 potential redundancies it looks like your org will be in to the realms of the requirements of a collective redundancy and the extra steps that involves.
With 50 potential redundancies it looks like your org will be in to the realms of the requirements of a collective redundancy and the extra steps that involves.
edc said:
What you are describing is called pooling. The process would then have selection criteria to identify those at risk and who then carry on through the remainder of the process with further individual consultations.
With 50 potential redundancies it looks like your org will be in to the realms of the requirements of a collective redundancy and the extra steps that involves.
Yes, you are right, I guess my question should really read "What is fair selection process for pooling?" With 50 potential redundancies it looks like your org will be in to the realms of the requirements of a collective redundancy and the extra steps that involves.
....because it is a question over whether they are being fair about who is in the pool, and who isn't......
alolympic said:
LOL! Yeah, it seems.....
I think this is not really a LOL, and more a case of - yeah, that's actually how it happens.I've been through several redundancy cycles, although none as a result of Covid, and that's exactly how it happens. The top management decide on a target number to go, they pass that number down to the next layer of management who then pick the names. Once the names are decided, the process is defined to fit with those names.
If you think for even one minute that this process is going to be fair and equitable then you're going to be sorely disappointed. If the next layer of management are smart, there will be no documented evidence of how the names were initially chosen, all that will be documented is the final process.
omniflow said:
alolympic said:
LOL! Yeah, it seems.....
I think this is not really a LOL, and more a case of - yeah, that's actually how it happens.I've been through several redundancy cycles, although none as a result of Covid, and that's exactly how it happens. The top management decide on a target number to go, they pass that number down to the next layer of management who then pick the names. Once the names are decided, the process is defined to fit with those names.
If you think for even one minute that this process is going to be fair and equitable then you're going to be sorely disappointed. If the next layer of management are smart, there will be no documented evidence of how the names were initially chosen, all that will be documented is the final process.
nothing you can do except hope your face fits the company moving forward.
Redundancies can be incredibly stressful and unfair and all I can suggest is start finding a new role and if by some luck you are kept then you can not worry, and if you leave hopefully you have a new start date and a chunk of redundancy money in your pocket.
No that process would appear on the face of it to be unfair, in the event what you have been "told" is correct. A cynic would suggest that the teams not "in the pool" are those employees the management want to keep and not risk.
It all depends on how much of a fuss you want to make and I am guessing you are not in the safe "group". In your shoes I would be considering some WP discussions..
It all depends on how much of a fuss you want to make and I am guessing you are not in the safe "group". In your shoes I would be considering some WP discussions..
alolympic said:
...some squads are at risk, but others are not. This is despite the fact that people working in one squad have the same types of skills as people in another squad.
A question for those who know such things - could this be acceptable if it's due to what the squads work on? e.g the company is stopping all development of product A so those working on it are no longer needed, but product B development is continuing so the squads working on that are not at risk.?Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
I thought the redundancy process came after the people were selected for redundancy? I.e choose which faces don't fit anymore and then make the selection criteria fit those people being made redundant.
I had worked for a company in a sales role for 5 years & had been the top selling salesman for every quarter in the last 3 years.The company took over another company with similar products & its sales manager became the UK sales director bringing with him 2 salesman. I was emailed telling me to concentrate on our existing products and ignore the new products. 6 months later it was announced that a salesman would be made redundant. It was me with lack of knowledge of the new products being cited as one reason. In my last quarter with the company I only worked 9 weeks but was still top selling salesman.
I took the company to the industrial tribunal & was awarded compensation that was double my redundancy payment.
The long standing sales manager also ensured I was paid the commision on one large sale I had negotiated but actually was placed after I left.
T5R+ said:
Should the process not start with a VR-Voluntary Redundancy process to ascertain who actually may want to leave?
Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
No it shouldn't as there is no requirement or obligation for a voluntary redundancy exercise. Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
Edited by T5R+ on Tuesday 9th June 22:42
edc said:
T5R+ said:
Should the process not start with a VR-Voluntary Redundancy process to ascertain who actually may want to leave?
Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
No it shouldn't as there is no requirement or obligation for a voluntary redundancy exercise. Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
Edited by T5R+ on Tuesday 9th June 22:42
When I have managed these processes before we have offered voluntary redundancy to those in the pool, but there is no obligation, and certainly no obligation to run it wider than the pool.
blueg33 said:
edc said:
T5R+ said:
Should the process not start with a VR-Voluntary Redundancy process to ascertain who actually may want to leave?
Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
No it shouldn't as there is no requirement or obligation for a voluntary redundancy exercise. Given the scale of cuts would anticipate "forced" compulsory redundancy after the VR has been identified.
Edited by T5R+ on Tuesday 9th June 22:42
When I have managed these processes before we have offered voluntary redundancy to those in the pool, but there is no obligation, and certainly no obligation to run it wider than the pool.
My last redundancy was voluntary, as that was the first offer on the table to reduce staff numbers.
In fact they had so many volunteers that nobody was forcibly made redundant.
Most of us had been there a reasonable number of years, and got a fair payout.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff