Advanced search

Redundancy Issue

(10 Posts)
Merlincat07 Fri 22-Jul-16 13:18:02

I could really use some advice as everywhere I turn, I keep hitting brick walls.

My husband has just been made redundant from his job, in which he has only been employed for 18 months. His company decided to cut a team of 9 down to 5. They chose to use a scoring system, whereby, the 5 highest would keep their jobs. Last week my husband was told he had scored third highest so we assumed he was safe.

Two people selected for redundancy challenged the way they had been selected and went through a re-scoring process. One is still going but the other scored the same as my husband so is now staying. He has now been told that as the scores were tied, they've had to make a selection decision and have based it on length of service to give the reason why my husband should now go.

I am devastated by this decision and utterly dismayed. He may have been tied with the re-scored employee but must have had a higher score than two other people, the lowest of whom should have been selected for redundancy?

He has queried several times if his score was identical to anyone else and just keeps being told they were "exceptionally close". I feel like I've entered a parallel universe in which they can't see that exceptionally close and identical are not the same thing!

We know that the reason he has been selected is because, with less than two years' service, he has no rights to claim anything or appeal. And they could obviously see that a successful challenge by one employee was going to lead to further challenges by others. Choosing my husband has provided a neat and quick way of putting pay to that.

But, I can't get passed the fact that he scored higher than someone else and that was the basis for selecting. Therefore this hasn't been a fair process surely? Even his union (it's private not public sector) don't think he can do anything and I'm running out of ideas of how to challenge this to at least ensure he leaves with a decent pay-out to help us survive financially.

If anyone can provide any advice, I would be extremely grateful.

flowery Fri 22-Jul-16 14:40:44

If he's only been there 18 months they didn't have to use any selection process at all, they could have just given him notice, and he's not entitled to any 'pay-out'. Sorry, but with such short service he has very few rights.

Merlincat07 Fri 22-Jul-16 18:23:16

Thank you for your reply.

I have very quickly learnt that there are very few rights in place for a person in my husband's situation. There's another member who staff who has only been there for 19 months who is also going but because they didn't score highly enough for the top 5. If they'd immediately taken both out of the equation and only put the 7 staff with two years service or more through the scoring process, then I know we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But to change the rules at the last minute seems intrinsically wrong to me.

Is there no legal challenge when the selection process has been unfair, regardless of length of service?

caroldecker Fri 22-Jul-16 18:58:24

You could challenge the process as unfair, people may agree. Courts would then decide how your husband has been affected by the unfairness. The answer is 'not at all' because he did not have employment rights.
He is therefore not disadvantaged by the unfairness, so no change as a result.

Merlincat07 Fri 22-Jul-16 20:13:23

Thank you for the clarification. I'm stunned that someone can be treated this way and felt certain there must be something he can do.

No need for further replies - looks like my understanding of employee rights was deluded confused sad

flowery Fri 22-Jul-16 20:34:01

The legal challenge would be a claim of unfair dismissal to a tribunal, however as your husband has less than two years' service this option isn't open to him. As I said, there was no need for them to use a selection process at all, so the fact that your husband feels the one they used was unfair is neither here nor there.

fastdaytears Fri 22-Jul-16 20:38:06

I know it doesn't feel right does it?

I hope your DH can find something else soon. wine

cexuwaleozbu Fri 22-Jul-16 21:21:43

That sucks but pp are right - they probably should have had him going by default right at the start because they don't owe him anything having only been there for 18 months.

However, one possible straw to clutch at: this colleague who now has equal points to your DH got this score from a "re-mark" : surely your DH also deserves a re-mark. If he can gain even an extra half point he is in the lead again and if they are genuinely wanting to keep on the best, rather than getting rid of the cheapest to lose, he may be OK.

caroldecker Fri 22-Jul-16 21:45:53

They did the selection process because they want to keep your husband. In reality any manager could tell you the order they would like to make people redundant, and often they work out a process to keep the people they want.
Unfortunately, people who could claim unfair dismissal made a fuss and HR/senior management have backed down and taken the easy route.

Merlincat07 Sat 30-Jul-16 08:48:29

Thank you for all of your replies. I hadn't checked back to see if anyone else had posted.

Cexuwaleozbu no remarks/appeals for my DH. Again, because of the fact he hasn't been there two years, this is another thing he's not entitled to do.

caroldecker this is exactly the conclusion we've drawn from the start. I'm justt miffed that this is allowed to happen. I suppose until you go through it, you're just not aware of how easily you can be screwed over.

Thanks again.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now