My DH has just been given his letter detailing the fact that he is to be made redundant, but we are a bit confused at how they've done it and if it's above board iyswim.
Basically, there were four people at risk of being made redundant - they were all called into their manager's office nearly two weeks ago, and were told that it would be done using a set of criteria which would include the skills they have and what they bring to the company and attendance record. There was no letter/written record of this 'meeting'.
DH was happy with the selection process, mostly because in the past they've done "last one in, first one out" and he would definitely have been the one to be made redundant straight away but also because he thought it would be fairer to all involved. Also, the last redundancy in the company was carried out using a variety of selection criteria. They were all pretty surprised at the fact there was to be a redundancy as only 3 months ago they were told by the managing director/owner of the company that there was no chance of redundancies in the near future.
Anyway, fast-forward to last Friday (6th July) and DH is called into the office and told he had been selected for redundancy - however, the manager said that they had gone with the "last one in, first one out" as they couldn't decide/had no records to make the decision, without informing the 4 at risk of redundancy that this had changed. She then proceeded to tell DH all about how "Bob has been at the company the longest, and John is a bit gobby but knows XYZ, and Alex is a lot slower than everyone else but he gets the job done" and how she couldn't possibly decide between them.
Sorry it's so long, but I just want to know whether it's ok to tell them they would be selected using a variety of criteria, and then change it without informing them of that change?
I know I'm biased as I think DH is great and is really brilliant for the company - the manager is so happy with how much he's saving the company by fixing things rather than buying new/sending them back to suppliers to fix and sorting out their ordering system and it's such a shock to hear that he has been made redundant over others who have refused to do parts of their job even when the manager has asked them to and gone 'AWOL' for 3 or 4 hours at a time, and I know I'm clutching at straws. It's just been such a shock and I really feel for DH. Sorry - I know I'm probably going to be flamed for this whole post, but it really gets me how no matter how hard you work sometimes, you'll still be crapped on <<bitter experience>>. Thanks for reading if you got this far.
TheWalkingDaed, i don't have any legal background, so am happy to be overruled by more authoritative heads than I but I think it's illegal to do last in first out redundancy, because it unfairly discriminates against younger workers.
Looking on the internet, it looks like it can be used but isn't recommended. putting it bluntly, if your DH's employer couldn't decide between them, why did they pick your DH? I think he needs to sit down, make a buisness case for him staying, and only brining up issues abour other staff not doing their jobs if he has evidence to back this up, not hearsay, and then go back in to see the management again.
Thank you Fire - DH is the youngest by about 5 or 6 years, and the ones that have worked there the longest have 10+ years on him. I think we're going to sit down tonight and get together a plan - he has and can save the company a lot of money that wasn't being saved before he started trying to get them to economise. In just two days, for example, he saved them more than he is paid monthly and has the capacity to save even more if they allowed him to fix things at the other premises, but they seem pretty resistant to this for some reason.
He told me this morning that the owner of the company visited them 3 months ago and told them everything was going really well and that as a company, they were making more money than other companies in the same business, so this is all the more confusing. I understand that DH doesn't know the ins and outs of all their finances, but to be told that as well as seeing the purchase of another company in the last 2 years and seeing a brand new Jag being bought for his manager's equivalent at another depot a year ago, you can understand why it's a bit hard to swallow. Sorry for rambling, just really shocked.
Last in first out defo goes against age discrimination so very dodgy. Also should have placed him at risk initially with a period of consultation. Couldn't they have done interviews as a fairer selection process? They should have confirmed the amended change to Seldction criteria during consultstion. Go on the acas website, a tribunal will look to see if the employer has followed the acas guidelines - doesn't sound like they did! Also he should be given the opp to appeal the decision. They sound absolutely useless! Good luck I feel for u! Ps I work in hr x