Any advice for my friend (civil service) who is being treated like poo by her parent department?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

This might be long! Friend of mine started work with the civil service about 10 years ago as an administrative assistant (the lowest grade). After two years she went on secondment to another government department and got promoted twice there. She left there as an executive officer and picked up a job in a third government department as a Higher Executive Officer. All promotions were regarded as not substantive.

Her parent department, who have not contacted her for the past eight years since she's been away from them, apart from to agree these various moves, have now said that she has to return to them at her substantive grade (admin assistant) by the end of the year. They won't budge on this, won't honour any of her promotions - basically she has to return to the same job she had 8 years ago, in the town she lived in then. Her salary will be at least half of what she currently earns and she will have to relocate.

She has tried to get her current government department to make her grade substantive, but they won't, as they say that she wasn't substantive at her lower grade - she would need to apply via open competition and they're not recruiting at the moment.

Her parent department have told her that they are downsizing, and she thinks this is a way of getting her to resign without having to pay her redundancy. She has had no help from the union who say she has no grounds for constructive dismissal.

Any advice or any idea where she can go next?!

[scatterbrain]

This all sounds very odd to be honest. It is highly unusual for anyone to get promoted more than one grade unsubstantively.

I would think her best bet would be to start applying for all HEO posts she can find in any department.

Does she have to leave the current department ? Can she not stay there ? Will they not take her on permanently and substantively ?

Is she a union member ?

[NorthernLurker]

This is dreadful - I am in a similar position returning from maternity leave - except I was only in the acting up post for 7 months so can swallow the fact that I need to apply etc. Tbh - I think the only thing she can do is look for another job - using the experience she has gained thus far.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Scatterbrain - I know! She's the only case I've heard of. She has applied for a couple of HEO posts in other departments, but she can't apply for most of the jobs advertised as she's not substantive in the grade and not a substantive EO going for promotion. And she can't apply for anything else on secondment or loan as her parent department won't agree to it.

She can't stay in her current dept. They won't take her substantively as they say she doesn't meet the criteria for transfer (ie she's not a substantive HEO) and would have to apply via open competition and they're not running one this year.

She was in the union but I think she jacked in her membership as they were not remotely helpful.

As her current govt dept has taken her on as HEO, should they not also bear any responsibility for her predicament, would you think?

[scatterbrain]

Is she very keen to stay in the civil service ? I would say that maybe she should go private where they will be more interseted in her skills and experience than her substantive grade. The civil service ties itself up in knots sometimes with it's rules !

I work for an executive agency and we have moved away from core department recruitment rules - so we recruit to a post not to a grade - and are keen on taking people from "outside" to broaden our skills base.

Where is your friend based ? My agency is in Surrey if that's of any help - I don't think we are recruiting any HEOs at present but I am quite happy to keep an eye out !

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Scatterbrain, yes she is keen to stay in the civil service, but is considering almost anything at the moment. I think she could manage Surrey but not where her parent department want her to go back to! What is the name of your agency?

[Crocky]

Can she not apply for the other jobs as an external applicant?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Crocky - no. The civil service tends to recruit at certain times of the year, and as I said, the government dept that she's working for at the moment is not recruiting at present.

[scatterbrain]

Hi MrsS - can I CAT you ? I'd rather not out myself on here !!

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Yes, please do!

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Just bumping this in case anyone else has any ideas?

[flowerybeanbag]

Good grief. This is madness! Seriously they are prepared to lose someone with that length of service and those skills and experience just because of a technicality?!

I don't know what to say tbh, that's utterly ridiculous. And the union are not helpful either? Blimey.

Is there anyone in HR she could talk to who might be sympathetic and help sort this mess out?

[flowerybeanbag]

I'm not convinced that she wouldn't have a case for constructive dismissal either. Mind you, would be difficult to bring without union support.

Has she rung ACAS or anything?

Will be back once I've had a think and a dig.

[flowerybeanbag]

I really can't see why effectively downgrading her to a job and a grade she hasn't worked at for 8 years just because of a technicality wouldn't be constructive dismissal.

Her current department could make her substantive in her existing post but are deciding not to because she wasn't substantive in her previous post?

How can that possibly be reasonable? I wish I knew more about civil service stuff. Actually, no, I don't, it would annoy me too much! I avoid it for a reason!

I would suggest she tries to talk to someone in HR if that's a possibility and also give ACAS a ring 08457 474747. This is a bit beyond me, I don't have enough knowledge but it doesn't feel right to me and worth at least exploring with ACAS, CAB or a solicitor I think.

[RibenaBerry]

Eek. I saw your message on the other thread Flowery. I don't really know anything about the Civil Service, but I'll do my best...

I think that, regardless of rules about substantive or not (which, I confess, I do not understand in the slightest), telling someone that they have to return to the level of duties that they carried out 8 years ago must be highly likely to be constructive dismissal.

I think that, whilst it might be possible for someone to carry out higher duties whilst on secondment and then be expected to return to normal duties at the conclusion of the secondment, that must logically only apply when the secondment is short and actively managed. Your description sounds like, in the real world, your friend has moved department, no matter what the government says.

You say that your friend would have to relocate, as she has moved during this time. What happened there? Did her parent department agree to the move? Did they warn her that she might have to come back to the original location when the secondment ended? I think that there is a potential redundancy situation there, if she cannot stay in post closer to home and she was not warned that the move had to be temporary (e.g. if you go on secondment to Hong Kong for two years, you don't expect it to be a redundancy situation when your employer says you have to move home. On the other hand, if they move you to Edinburgh indefinitely,they can't suddenly say you have to move back to London).

I think that the pay thing is important too. I really don't see how wiping out eight years of payrises on a technicality can be anything other than constructive dismissal.

Your friend needs to see a lawyer specialising in public sector work I think!

[flowerybeanbag]

Thanks so much Ribena I was flailing about going with my instincts, nice to have another opinion reinforcing them.

Definitely your friend needs specialist help MrsS.

[PrincessPeaHead]

Another lawyer here who knows nothing about the civil service and is not an employment lawyer (caveat over) BUT.... I agree with Ribena. I think there is a very clear case of constructive dismissal. Being required to (a) relocate and (b) take a demotion and (c) very substantial pay cut to me absolutely adds up to constructive dismissal.

She needs legal advice asap.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

I am really grateful to you all for this! When she left her parent department, she tried to keep in touch with them (eg send them her annual appraisal) but they told her "they don't keep in touch with people of her grade."

I think they are slightly worried about being sued for constructive dismissal as they have recently increased the notice period for her return from 6 months to 18 months - in dribs and drabs. They have also recently told her that her parent govt department is downsizing and there will be redundancies. Their HR department refuse to speak to either her or the HR dept in her current dept or her line manager. She is dealing instead with the person who will be her line manager when she returns.

The union rep told my friend she had no case for constructive dismissal as her parent department had, to a certain extent, followed the correct procedure and the guidance to those going on secondment states that they can be expected to return to their substantive grade when the secondment ends.

Her parent department agreed to all her various secondments, and even more bizarrely, about a year ago, agreed to one for another four years (but she didn't get the job), then telling her three months later that she had to return to her original job. She's now working in London and her original job was on the south coast.

The current department say that they do not recruit people on an ad hoc basis for permanent positions and I believe quoted employment law at her.

[flowerybeanbag]

The union may well have been involved in drafting the procedure which is I am sure perfectly legal when used in the context in which it was intended, which would have been short term secondments followed immediately by a return to the original job.

But it sounds as though the union has lost sight of the fact that employment law obviously would overrule any internal procedure, and if taking any procedure to the extreme means an employer steps outside the law, it is perfectly ok for them to protest on behalf of their member, even if the procedure being quoted was initially agreed by them and is technically being followed.

Very disappointing of them, but union reps can be rubbish just the same as anyone else. Might it be worth her trying to speak to someone higher up at the union who might have a slightly broader view? Your friend does need legal advice but at the very least I would expect the union to be able to point her in the direction of a suitable employment lawyer working in this field, even if they can't provide her with practical help from her rep.

It's probably possible for her current department to find a bit of employment law to quote at your friend to back up their assertion that they don't need to recruit outside their normal process, but obviously a tribunal would take a wider view of what's happening to your friend than this one particular decision which is a very small part of the situation.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Flowery - yes, most secondments are usually only for a period of 3 years (4 years tops) and at only one grade above your substantive one.

You are right - her union rep is useless! I don't think they even suggested that she might consult an employment lawyer, it was a case of, what the department done is correct, you can be returned to your current grade, end of.

I think her current department should also bear some responsibility for this predicament. She was the only person who applied for (and who has the skills for) her current job, and it was advertised civil-service wide.

[PrincessPeaHead]

she needs outside legal advice

just because the civil service says that a secondment can encompass several promotions and changes of departments etc whilst still requiring her to go back to a job she effectively left 4 years and 3 payrises ago.... doesn't mean it IS so

the tribunal will look at the facts of the case - ie what actually happened and whether the return to her old job at old grade and old salary in old location is a substantive change to her employment such that it would be reasonable for her to claim she has effectively been dismissed (paraphrasing massively here)... and it seems fairly clear to me that they WOULD be likely to find constructive dismissal. the fact that the civil service says "no, that is just how we DO it" is pretty much irrelevant.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Thank you PPH.

I've pointed her to this thread and she's going to speak to an employment lawyer.