Stand my ground? WWYD?(46 Posts)
New boss (2 days in post) has carved up my job and given it away to three different roles. One of the roles is a job from which the present incumbent is retiring soon. I have been offered this position and boss deems it 'suitable alternative employment' and that I have no claim for redundancy.
The new role is currently being advertised as F/T, yet when I pointed out I am P/T the boss offered it to me on a P/T basis, although the job is already being done F/T and now has 50% of my job added to it. It is also much more responsibility than I want and they are not offering me more money.
The other option boss has suggested is to keep the work I do now but reduce my hours by 50%. However, I know for a fact the job I do now might be amalgamated with another job next year and I'd be at risk of redundancy again. (Boss told me this)
Should I stand my ground and request redundancy? (they'll refuse, so it will mean an ET).
An employment lawyer has told me that I am justified in saying neither option is suitable and to request redundancy.
Thanks for your reply.
Ideally, I'd like to do my job but as it 'no longer exists' (boss's words), then I think I'm entitled to redundancy.
If so, and if an employment lawyer has said this is correct, then stand your ground, and have an ET if necessary. Sounds nasty.
Yes, it's been ongoing for over a month now, has been handled badly from the beginning and I'm made to feel like I'm being awkward!
Has boss shown his working, ie looked at the time demands of all the roles and worked out reasonably that it's all possible?
Is it pubic sector/education? My idiot boss in a prev job would do this to get 'saved money' points and fuck everything up because it wasn't possible in the time allocated. It was
totally unethical fascinating that when he added responsibilities to his role he got a salary bump, but when he added them to others he saved money. No one checked. He got away with it, but you are supposed to show working to remove job roles and demonstrate why, if it's in a large employer.
Not sure Lanark2. It's only me affected, my job is a bit of a niche role.
It's charity sector and boss is on a biiiig salary, especially for a small charity! I suspect boss has been told to make some (a lot!) money and is starting at the office before getting out there to bring money in...
Is this an employment lawyer properly engaged with the full facts of the case? What you've described doesn't read to me like a redundancy situation. There has been a restructure of workload, and it looks like the job still exists (despite what boss says). There seems to be plenty of work.
Yes Olly, solicitor has been involved from outset.
It sounds illogical, as if the work is there, adding it to a role that is full time doesn't make much sense.
It is a redundancy situation if the role will be carved up over a period of a few months, but he is probably trying to pretend it isn't.
The role with your role added at higher level of responsibility without additional funds seems a poor choice.
I would suggest talking it over with the trustees. It would also help you, and them, to understand if it is being done with their blessing or not.
It seems odd to target the role in this way and to not make this a more widely consulted decision.
I have met some utter idiots in the charity and third sectors, so don't take what he says as gospel.
50% of my job has already been given away and the remaining 50% I am doing but it will be added to the new job soon.
Boss says person about to retire is 'slow' so my 50% of job can be added easily. I don't think they are slow, and that the job definitely cannot be done now in less than F/T hrs, it so won't be done with my job added.
I did copy the trustees in to some correspondence, but they have not replied to me...
So he's been in post two days and has already decided that your soon-to-retire colleague is too slow.
Personally, I would start looking for a route out.
Yes, I can't believe the boss actually said that to me. I was outraged on colleague's behalf.
Its one of my 'signs' when an incoming manager instantly looks for negative characteristics in the team. The same type also tests to see if you will agree with them. A good manager sees positive characteristics and appoints roles according to the best use of those characteristics (eg 'slow' becomes 'thorough' ). A manager making those judgements on the first day, and voicing them is a crap manager with low maturity. I have never known this not to be true. The input 'possibly slower on some tasks' should be added to lots of information and characteristics that vary with workload, mood, motivation, other circumstances etc.
To add more tasks to a role where the incumbent is 'slow' without much more detailed information is idiotic I'm afraid. For example what if the role is overloaded?, has there been adequate time management training? Does the role require speed, or accuracy organisation and responsibility? Is the slowness a function of my adrenaline fuelled/stressed observing?
A manager needs to be much more than a knee jerk decision maker, they must also reflect!
Voicing his knee jerk decision is naïve, as he is yet to develop relationships and so cannot tell how that comment will be recieved.
Do you know much about his background?
NHS and we can see what's happening there!
He might have been asked to do this by the trustees
Not defending it, just saying as they are unlikely to help
If the employment lawyer is sure go with that, presume no win no fee?
Sometimes just the mention of a case will get you a payout, if you've been there ten years then I guess they are trying it on to avoid paying you redundancy.
That's my feeling too re redundancy pay lorelei9.
have you told them you're in touch with an employment lawyer?
Just out of interest, what type of role is this?
I worked in local government last year in a corporate support role and the workload was utterly ridiculous. Once in post, it was evident the role had gradually evolved to do more and more. I'm not too sure who they thought was capable of doing it. Woman before me had managed five months (mid 30s, bright, graduate, etc.) and nearly fell over in the process. I managed three months.
In terms of admin jobs, a lot of managers (who have never done that type of role) are totally deluded in terms how long things take and what is manageable in terms of workload.
Ex NHS? ah. That is why he thinks he gets points for removing jobs rather than getting things to work. He is a particular type of manager. What i call a 'Can't-Manager'
Ask trustees why he is aiming to cut costs and damage operations instead of generating funds, and point out that if he does things incorrectly, the cost savings will be undone by unpicking the legalities and managing the flat period as teams are rebuilt, recruitment stagnates etc.etc.
With trustees ask direct for an appointment. Do you know any management coaches or friends you can talk to about similar situations?
You need a lawyer. Pronto. And make sure your boss knows you are getting legal advice. Make sure the trustees know you are getting legal advice.
Do you have any protected characteristics in terms of discrimination? E.g. Are you the only woman there or do you have a disability?
They will shaft you big time unless you start protecting yourself.
It's a basic admin job that I do but they want me to do another admin role with much higher volume of work and there would be restrictions on when I could take leave - I'd have to be in the office at certain times of the month due to the nature of the work.
Boss definitely doesn't have a clue about what my job entails, so won't realise the impact of adding it to an already F/T job!
Or maybe they do and this is just how things are done these days?!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.