Is DH being unreasonable with his theory?

[Isitameproblem]

So I was just made redundant. (During consultation period but year whatever).

I was hired for head of department, but they created the position for me at offer stage because they didn't want to lose me.

Fast forward, and a new guy started on the level below (no big salary difference) this January.

So DH says that it's quite fishy or doesn't feel right when they could have downgraded my role and made my colleague redundant. (Last in, first out). So DH thinks it surely is performance related.

I'm not entirely sure because, I just passed my probation a month ago (with flying colours) and thanks to this making me redundant is going to cost them more £££.

I think they genuinely just saw the role title and thought, yes this one can go.

People who work in certain industries know that redundancy happens all the time and can come for anyone.

I’d be very pissed off and upset if my DP was suggesting it must be performance related - way to kick you when you’re down!

You cannot use first in first out as a way to made redundancies

it would come down to performance if comparing two people at the same role, but they don’t have a need for the role you do and they do have a need for your colleagues role so it’s not comparable.

are you sure acas said that? Because it’s not right. Seems an odd way for an industry to act to be honest, very costly to keep hiring and making people redundant in a short space of time

Yeah, ACAS definitely said that. They called it "bumping" ot something like that

They would still need to do a performance review of both people for that role to decide who to keep they cannot use first in first out as the reason.

i think you’ve simplified what they’ve said or you’ve spoken to an acas person who hasn’t articulated the information to you correctly

Well they can do whatever they want if it's under the 2 years and call it a redundancy

It is called bumping after all!

Yes bumping is a thing…

but you would still compare the two people who ‘could’ do the job, it doesn’t mean you’d keep the job because you’ve been there longer it comes down to competence in the role.

if similar pay it does seem unusual they’d get rid of the more qualified person 🤷‍♀️ but as you say, in you’re industry this seems to be the way it works

Yes the difference is around £5k. I have a bonus but they've made it virtually impossible to achieve, so that's by the by.

I also have more industry experience, but I don't think they necessarily need it. In terms of role and role only we're just as capable as each other.

So good old fashioned sexism and constructive dismissal.

They promote someone temporarily to allow transfer of skills to a man, after having promoted the woman. Then they sack a certain grade deliberately with this being the plan all along to get rid of the woman.

The whole thing sounds like bullshit designed to keep the bloke and get rid of the woman regardless of her ability to do the job.

Only a bloke would say it was down to performance...

Your question was: Is DH being unreasonable with his theory?

"DH thinks it surely is performance related."
"I actually don't think it's malice and more about lack of knowledge of the corporate world"

These comments contradict somewhat. If he lacks knowledge of your industry, how could he possibly be informed enough to suggest that you were made redundant due to your performance? Has he explained why he thinks that? That aside, if it were performance related you would be dismissed, not paid redundancy. Does he not have experience of workplace procedures?

"It can be read that wayabf I kind of do BUT he also says I don't need any help with CVs, CL etc, and that I'm extremely capable of finding another job and quickly"

That reads like this is your problem, get on with it. It is a bit dismissive. Did he say that then put his headphones on?

"From a moral POV I wouldn't do it though. I'm happy to leave, and my colleague is about to get married."

From a moral POV, all is fair in love and war, and you and your career matters just as much as the other guy. Why are you happy to leave?

I think your DH has no place to be having a theory, and even if he did, he should keep it behind his teeth.

A supportive response from DH would look like, "I'm so sorry, I know how hard you worked there, and how excited you were about your promotion. It sucks that they have had to sacrifice you to make the budget. How can I help you? Do you want to talk about it? Do you want me to get takeaway and wine? Would you like me to help with your CV next week, but no pressure for now, let's just chill and slag off your boss.

Unreasonable is stubborn, he's just being a dick. I hope you get an amazing next job that makes you super happy and fulfilled. People don't get promoted for no reason! You clearly are great at your job.

Just a few clarifications, I'm not getting redundancy pay, just my notice (3 months).

He genuinely has no evidence to think / suggest that it's performance related other than I had a difficult week not that long ago (like 3 weeks?) He doesn't have a corporate job, he barely finished secondary school, so he can't help me with CVs or cover letters! (No being nasty, just objective).

I'm happy to leave, because the company feels too small for me, and realistically it's too small to have a head of department. I wasn't promoted, I was given a better title as a carrot at offer stage.

I already have an interview for a very well known company, and I submitted my application yesterday, so clearly I'm capable!

Yea you are! Congratulations and good luck.
I'm also going to gloss over your glossing over :)
I wish you all the best! :)