Return from maternity and now redundancy consultation - help!

[Deliaskis]

Hi there,

I hope some of you fab employment law ladies can help. I know I will need to get formal advice, but would really appreciate thoughts from you guys on my situ as it's just happened today and I want to figure out my game plan.

Sorry if too much detail, I don't want to leave out anything pertinent.

Went on mat leave Feb 2011, had 6 months exactly (returned late August 2011, so been back at work just over 5 months), had an enhanced mat package which was 50% of pay for 6 months on the condition I came back at 6 months and stayed for 12 months.

I came back, and was told I was doing a different job to previously, which I was kind of OK with (small company so we all do lots of different roles anyway). Then the person who had been covering my mat role (an existing employee) didn't like my new role (and her new role, it affected us both), so I was switched back, then I was swopped back again, then disgruntled colleague left so I ended up doing both roles anyway. This happened in November. I was kind of OK with it as I understand I need to be flexible, but in all honesty, they did mess me around quite a lot.

Company in further financial trouble, no money, cashflow dire etc.

Week before last, company announcement saying had to cut overhead, two people identified for redunancy consultation (not me, not anybody in my team). One of those is def going next week, one has another month I think.

As part of the announcement, they had this bit where they kept going on about 'if anyone has any ideas of other ways we can cut costs etc. then tell us and they will be considered'.

Now it turns out, that one idea put forward (I don't know who from) was to cut someone from my team. The structure is 2 x Directors (top whack), me at Manager level, and a Senior Exec just slightly below me in the pecking order. So today I was called into a meeting to say that my role had been identified as possible at risk, although this wasn't like an offical 'your role is at risk and the consultation will begin', they phrased it like 'have a think about it and let us know if you think it would be feasible for us to lose your role and what the impact on the company would be?'. WTF? I don't know why I am being asked to consider what the impact on the company would be? Seems a particularly shitty thing to ask of someone.

So that's where I am now. As a bit of background, one of the two Directors was brought in 15 months ago (on a high salary) with the specific aim of bringing in new business, but has actually failed to bring in a penny, but is apparently not targetted for redundancy.

Further background, after all the job hopping debacle when I returned, it was agreed I would be doing two roles, then on Monday night, I was given a new job description (just in a 'oh we never gave you the updated one' so I didn't take much notice) and I now noticed it only has one of the two job roles on, the one that they say might be at risk.

Again background but I don't know what's relevant and what isn't, one of my roles is operational/financial and nobody else does that or knows how to, the other is a job that any of my team can do.

So what should my game plan be here? Something about this stinks but I don't know what. I don't want to stay now as it will be unpleasant and uncomfortable, but I need to better understand what my rights are re my job after mat leave, how that was handled, then now, what this 'let us know if you think it's feasible' crap (what is the meaning of that?), how they shoudl have gone about identifying the one member of my team who should be targetted, and really, how to get the best deal I can at this stage. Is anything they have done in any way iffy?

I don't want to 'take them to the cleaners' for the sake of it, I've been happy there, but I do want to be treated fairly (and of course financially I need to get the best I can), and I am a bit suspicious of what they're doing. Goes without saying, small company so no HR department.

Any thoughts/questions/anything stick out as something I should explore?

I know I need to get official advice, but I don't want to waste the potential free first hour with a lawyer by not having thought through and explored what is really going on.

I really appreciate any saint who has stuck with this to the end, sorry it's sooooo long.

Dx

[KatieMiddleton]

Which bit are you unhappy with? They have been honest with you all the way haven't they? Have you pointed out that the new job description they have given you doesn't reflect your current duties? If so what have they said?

It sounds like a company in trouble trying hard to do things properly and fairly. They probably don't know at a strategic level what you do operationally and it's important you tell them about the job you actually do because it is jobs that are redundant not people.

What do you mean by "rights are re my job after maternity leave"? You've been back 5 months now and you've not spoken up. You would be very unlikely to "take them to the cleaners" based on anything you've put here. Do let me know if I've read anything wrong or misunderstood.

[Deliaskis]

Hi Katie,

Thanks for your reply and honesty. I suppose, what I'm unhappy with, is that I don't understand why my role in this team of 4, is the one that seems to have been selected, and I'm not sure how that process works.

I suppose I feel like one of the senior people in my team who has clearly not made any contribution whatsoever to the business, ought to perhaps have been included in the selection, but she herself would have been part of the strategic team looking into it, so would hardly have put herself forward. The company has just a small number of projects on at the moment, and I am managing 75% of them, the slightly junior person is managing the rest, and the two senior people are just meant to be doing new business development, but this has generated nothing in months. I suppose I feel a little like I am one of the people doing the actual work, putting in billable hours, yet my position has been targetted.

I don't understand what I'm supposed to do at this juncture to get the best out of the situation for myself.

When I asked about my 'rights re my job after mat leave', I meant, I know when you come back after 6 months, you have rights re the type of job you should be given, but does that only apply to that instant, and then they can make your role redundant very soon after? I just wanted to clarify my position about that.

I probably expressed myself badly in my first post (well, not probably, I definitely did), I'm just sad it has come to this, and a little angry at some of the (IMO) bad decisions that were made whilst I was off that have led to this. But I suppose none of that is relevant to my personal case.

Thanks for your help and if you have any further thoughts based on what I've said above, please let me know.

Thanks
D

[KatieMiddleton]

Don't worry too much about your team being targeted (easy to say I know). I expect what's happened is people under threat are just pointing fingers elsewhere. This is very tempting to do when threatened as people scrabble to save themselves. Try not to do the same because it may make you look unprofessional and you need to be seen to be trustworthy and reliable at the moment.

I think an important point is that there may well be nothing worth saving if the situation is v v bad and it may not just be you who is at risk. You don't know who else has been spoken to. It may be that other people in your team and other teams have actually been put at risk. The more dire the situation the more likely this is. Have a look here for more information about redundancy processes including consultation.

There is no protection against redundancy for anyone if a job fails to exist any more. Women on maternity leave (and men on additional paternity leave) whose job has been made redundant have the right to be redeployed to another suitable vacancy if there is one. If there is not one they can be made redundant. See here: above half way down

When you returned from work if you took 26 weeks or less maternity leave you were entitled to return to your old job. If you mutually agreed something different at the time then there is no case. If you were persuaded to take a position you did not want instead of your old job you had to complain (ie raise a grievance) within a reasonable amount of time. It is too late now to do that I think. Also, would I be right in thinking you agreed to take the other roles and be flexible? Unless you were bullied or somehow tricked into taking them I can't see an issue.

From what you've said I think you have two significant issues to tackle:

1. The job you are doing is not the job you have been given a description for. You need to get this fixed ASAP. It is highly likely that the people making decisions do not know what you are doing and if they did your role would not be at risk.
   

1. The company may be in real trouble in which case you may want to think about getting out asap. If you can get another job and negotiate a redundancy package you're in an excellent position.
   

What do you think you'd like to do? And how are you feeling?

[KatieMiddleton]

above should be about.

I realise you are probably feeling quite shocked and upset that your contribution to the business has not been valued as highly as you feel it should be. Once the initial shock and passed you may well find it all feels much less awful even if nothing else happens at all.

[Deliaskis]

Katie thanks again so much for your words. I'm sorry, I ended up going to bed last night.

I suppose what I feel about the job switch is that they said:

Pre-maternity I was doing job B
Came back - you are doing job B
Oh no, you're doing job A
Oh no, colleague doesn't like that, you're doing job B again
Oh no, both you and colleague are going to do job A and share B
Oh, colleague is leaving, you are doing A+B (this was mid-November), your bus cards and sig etc. should say job A
Early Jan - oh we never gave you a new JD when colleague left, here it is (says job A title only, but responsibilities for both, I only realised this yesterday)
Week later - oh we have identified that job title B is at risk of redundancy

The second part of that feels like a bit of a stitch up, but I accept that could just be my emotional response.

You're right, I don't want to hang on till the death, getting out now would be best, I just want to make sure I am in as strong a position as possible to negotiate, and I don't know if any of the above is relevant (probably not though, from what you've said).

Thanks anyway, I'm feeling a bit sick this morning, no sleep from worrying etc. But I guess I will get through the day

D

[Deliaskis]

Sorry, above in brackets in point for early Jan, should have been 'says job title B only'.

[StillSquiffy]

It could be possible that someone in a meeting somewhere has said "Well, X has just had a baby, do you think she'd like to be made redundant?" Then they've thought it through and decided to maybe test the water and see if you'd jump at the chance or not. this may all have happened because someone was thinking of maybe doing you a favour. Or indeed it could be someone just trying to save their own skin.

Try not to worry too much about this. Get your job description fixed, then use that to show how they really cannot replace you. And take it from there.

[Deliaskis]

Hiya,

Thanks again for comments. I realise that I got it wrong yesterday. My job title on the new JD is A (as are my bus cards, signature, etc.), and they said role B (and its associated tasks) is at risk. So I raised this just now, that all of the redundancy talk is about role B, when my official job is role A, and the MD said 'well yes but we know why that is your job title, and we're really looking at where you spend the bulk of your time'. The 'we know why that is your job title' is related to the previous colleage who kicked off about roles when I returned from mat leave.

I checked my last few weeks timesheets and my time has been spent about 65% role A and 35% role B.

So really, they're not making role B redundant, they're making my role A+B redundant, but I don't think this is consistent with the information I've been given.

FWIW, the other three on my team, are nominally doing role A, but at different levels (2 senior to me and one slightly junior). The one slightly junior had a review meeting last week and a lot of it was talk about 'moving forward and promoting you to role A-same-level-as-me. So they are saying they are making A (my level) + B redundant, but potentially promoting someone else to A (my level anyway).

Is this OK for them to do?


Gah! Sorry for questions, I'm just confused and want to make sure I do and say the right things.

Thanks in advance.

Dx

[Deliaskis]

Sorry to bump my own post, but any thoughts on my latest post re job roles etc.? I am sure this is going ahead anyway, which is fine, I just want to make sure it is done properly and that I get treated fairly.

Ta
D

[flowery]

It does sound a bit as though you've made a mental leap from someone making a suggestion about your role to you definitely being made redundant.

Far far more important than job titles is what you and colleagues are actually doing. So yes, get your job description reflecting what you actually do.

Then if/when they start formally consulting with you/putting forward an actual proposal, you can come back here and we'll tell you whether they are doing it right. But tbh it sounds like at the moment you're leaping ahead mentally and speculating a bit, and it's very difficult advising on 'in theory if they did x, y and z would that be fair?'

[KatieMiddleton]

I agree with flowery. I was wondering how to word my reply but she's put it perfectly. I do know it's tough when things are up in the air so approaching this one step at a time and not dwelling too much on 'what ifs' will help.

You could be in a stronger position than you think. Start looking around for other opportunities to get yourself in the best possible position. At the moment everything looks ok and legal. At least they are talking to you that is good. It probably shows they are trying to be fair.

[Deliaskis]

Hi flowery & Katie thanks so much for replying. You're probably right that I am making a bit of a leap, it's just that with the last two poeple who were axed a couple of weeks ago, it went from this to official consultation in days (I have a meeting on Monday when I assume they will be starting official consultation).

So I need to demonstrate the split of my time, and my contribution, and if they still decide I'm going, then deal with that separately.

You're right, I am walking around with the cloud of doom over my head, yet there are steps that will need to happen first.

Incidentally, I am (of course) looking for other opportunities and it's all looking very positive.

Thank you so much for your help, it's really appreciated, and I know you have other things to do than responding to hysterical mners with job woes like me, and yet you do it anyway, and for that I'm really grateful.

D

[KatieMiddleton]

You're welcome. Better to let it all out and ask then let it fester IME