To Raise a Grievance or Not?

[Marmozet]

My job is currently at risk of redundancy and I have entered an individual consultation period. I was informed that redeployment is an option and that the business will endeavour to approach you if a similar role became available regardless of its location. Because you're at risk they would look to move you into that position to prevent so many job losses.

However, I came across a vacancy in another location which is basically the role I undertake now but with a different name. In my latest meeting I challenged why no one approached neither me or my colleagues affected about this role only to be given the response that the role wasn't at our location.

I then challenged this and explained that their redeployment process states that no one is overlooked because of location and that it's rather an assumption of them to believe that none us would like to relocate.

So this role has passed us by. Ultimately I wouldn't have gone for it because of the location but I'm annoyed at the principle that a process wasn't followed and that my other colleagues at risk weren't approached and the possibility this could have prevented a job loss.

My union want me to raise a grievance as there have been other calamities in the process but I'm not entirely sure it is worth the hassle and could I be looked at unfavourably by the business? Also I'm not too sure what result I would want other than they follow the correct process in future.

Could anyone provide any advice please?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[flowery]

You are not a pawn to be used by the union in an argument they wish to have with management.

You state the policy is that “the business will endeavour to approach you if a similar role became available regardless of its location.”

Endeavour. Not guarantee. The vacancy was available and you found it and didn’t wish to apply anyway. Don’t raise a grievance because you weren’t specifically spoon fed a role you didn’t want anyway.

If a job was lost because someone wasn’t specifically approached, the union should encourage that person to appeal their dismissal on that basis.

[CoRhona]

Definitely not, if all you want is for them to follow process in future. It's very stressful, extremely time consuming and yes, you may well be looked on negatively.

If it could massively benefit you then possibly yes, but be aware of above. If not, and you're not raising a bullying / discrimination issue, don't even think about it!

[Florencex]

Is it a recognised union? If so, they should be keeping on top of this themselves not getting individuals to do their work.

If they are not a recognised union and are not involved in the process then no, I still wouldn’t raise a grievance over a job that you wouldn’t have applied for anyway.

[daisychain01]

A grievance is only useful if you can decide on what you want the outcome to be.

Had you been told you no longer have a job, even though you know there had been a vacancy and you could have applied for it, had you known), then it would be worth raising a grievance, with your desired outcome being that you would be given a role similar to, if not exactly the same, as the one you've lost.

There is little point jeopardising the working relationship by submitting a grievance when you haven't actually lost your job.

It would be worth re-emphasising to your employer that you would like to stay working for them, so please can they ensure you are fully appraised of future opportunities, at all its company locations.

[Fishfingersandwichplease]

I had similar to this and Acas advised me only to escalate it if l wanted the other job - which l didn't!