employment question - do I have a grievance?

[NicknameTaken]

I was told in early 2011 my job was being made redundant: the tasks would be split between two new roles, neither of which seemed suitable. I took redeployment outside my department (huge organisation) at a lower grade.

I just found out that three new people were appointed. One of them (the role I wasn't told about) seems to be massively similar to my old role. I never saw it advertised externally or internally. It went to the wife of one of my former colleagues there (who is qualified for the role). In addition, of the two roles I knew about, I had been told that I wasn't suitable for one, as I lacked a specific qualification. I think (and I'm in the process of verifying) that the person who was appointed also lacks the qualification.

I'm not saying I should necessarily have got any of the roles. I do think I should have been able to apply.

I've written to HR to ask when and where the third job was advertised, and the job description.

If the facts are as I understand them, I have a legitimate grievance, don't I? Is it worth pursuing? I don't want to be reinstated in my old department, so what could I hope for - an apology, compensation? Is it worth it? I want to stay in the institution, so should I keep my head down so as not to be branded a trouble-maker?

Not an expert on employment but would suggest that you re-post under 'employment matters' as lots of the employment experts hang out there. Good luck

Hi,

I'm no expert but because you didn't take redundancy and took redeployment outside the department i dont think that you would have a very good case. Did you move or was this an agreement so you wouldnt get redundancy. Did you get a redundancy payout (sorry for all the questions).

A redundancy situation can not only occur as a result of a downturn in business, but also in the expectation of such a downturn. If employers have a reasonable expectation that the business would take a downturn and they were wrong, they can still have a defence that the redundancy was genuine. Was there a restructure of the organisation?

During your redundancy consultation period, your employer should have actively investigated the possibility of suitable alternative employment for you, which they have done because you are now working elsewhere in the business. They could use this as there argument if it went to tribunal.

If you feel that you were moved out of the company under the guise of redundancy, I would advise that you contact your employer in writing outlining your concerns, seeking clarification of reason for redundancy. You should follow the standard grievance procedure. Ultimately, you can apply to the Employment Tribunals within 3 months of your date of job change to seek a claim for unfair dismissal, but I would advise that you take legal advice before doing so. Most solicitors run a free thirty mins session. Being as you are still with the company it would be better to be fully prepared.

Hope that helps a bit :-)

Thanks for the answer, bellarama. I didn't get a redundancy payout as I took redeployment. I'm not preparing for a big fight because tbh I'm happier out of my old dept. The issue is just that I was told the post was redundant only for it to be (apparently) re-appearing and given to someone else. I'd be quite happy with my old boss being given a behind-the-scenes bollocking by HR.

Oh, and thanks MOS - I wasn't sure where the lawyers hang out most. I'll probably hang fire for now and see what HR has to say about it.