What legal options exist over seemingly unfair role matching in restructuring

[PieBear]

Apologies for the length of this, I wanted to include relevant information rather than drip-feed. I work in a large public sector organisation and have serious concerns about a service redesign we're currently going through. It is merging 2 separate services into one. Preference has very clearly been given to those in one service (A) with new roles which clearly state will cover both service areas in the new structure being level 1 matched to individuals in this service meaning they are being given these roles without any competitive process. It is obvious that others in the other service (B) have equal experience (doing similar roles but at a higher level) so as a minimum they should have been level 2 matched (arguably Level 1 matched due to the higher level of responsibility reflected in a higher grade) to trigger a competitive process. A key issue, I think, is that the head of service B is relatively new, inexperienced working at this level and has no understanding of what the roles in this part of her service actually do and has not engaged in any discussions with the relevant staff to find out. I've raised this with my TU rep who completely agrees and is asking questions and seeking clarity on the matching process, supported by clear evidence provided by me. My concern, and hence my asking here, is that on discussing my case with the TU rep following the "nothing to see here" responses we've so far received from management, when pressed for what leverage we actually had to press for transparency and accountability my rep's response was that they would not provide the clarity needed and the end result would be pissed off staff. This appeared to be the extent of her thinking. Whilst she might be up for a fight on this basis I'm not - I want to understand the actual legal processes available to me to press for some level of transparency, accountability and fairness so I can prepare a strategic plan for next steps. If the reality is that there are none and management will push through what they want regardless of the glaring inequities I want to know this so I dont waste emotional time and energy on a lost cause. However, probably naively, I can't quite believe that management in a large public sector organisation can do something on this scale with no sort of accountability whatsoever. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience in this area who could help me understand any realistic options available to me? Thank you and sorry this was so long!

@PieBear Good luck you have this all under control.

There must be a department policy on restructuring and it must be consistent

The only valid reason that I can think of for department A to be considered and not department B would be if the change included relocation beyond a specific distance and the affected grades were non mobile grades
(That would be that the new structure would be at the location of A or a new location C that is within relocation distance of A but too far for the relocation distance of B)

Unless that is the case I would think that there is the potential of a grievance against the process that has mapped one team but not let the other team be eligible
A grievance does not require union involvement (but it helps)

Help via the union is as good as the union volunteers locally / regionally and with the potential of “more experienced” national reps.
ACAS as mentioned is a dedicated body with the expertise to advise and step in for arbitration if it gets that far

In my experience of the public sector (MoD) mobile grades would be management and non mobile grades would be admin.
So all management grades in A and B would be equally assessed against the new roles, admin grades within distance would be equally assessed, admin grades out of distance would not

To assess the post mapping of a role you would take the new C job description, and compare that against old job descriptions of A and B. If they are identical or similar enough then all matched existing A & B staff map to the new C job. If too many map over then there are “limited competition” interviews for the individuals who mapped, if there are enough jobs for the matched then they map over
Potentially an old job could map to more than one new job

If individuals do not map (or don’t fit relocation distance rules) then they become surplus
“surplus” is technically redundant, but able to apply for other roles during the process.
As noted by the OP these may be “protected” and will typically have a surplus pool process to avoid the expense of actual redundancies (and avoid losing the headcount of people who could apply for other jobs in the department)

I have gone through quite a few MoD restructuring processes.

In one I was a “union observer” watching the post mapping comparisons. Groups of likely similar old to new job roles had already been gathered into folders in advance as part of the planning process, and I was “observing” the actual post mapping day to see that all were given a fair comparison.
My only recommendation was that I spotted two “different new job descriptions” which were only being mapped against the relevant old job descriptions, but they were both effectively two similar processes triggered by two different topic subjects on their own forms - I suggested that taking away the form name made the two job descriptions very similar, and the panel agreed which meant the groups could both map to two jobs in the new structure (it still meant less jobs in the restructure but those individuals mapped to 2 of them, still with competion interviews but 2 chances of success

In most of the others I was in the management teams running the restructuring and mapping, and in different ones I was doing the initial structure and picking the groups of old / new roles to be compared, or participating in the post mapping panels

@Kirschcherries The op says LGPS. Thats local government is it not? That means it’s complicated and the Op should already know about this in her annual statement.

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. I think Im beginning to accept that they're intent on pursuing a clearly biased process; they know whom they want and have matched accordingly. My rep is challenging their non-answers to her questions and made it clear that they want to see their paperwork which supports their decisions and aren't accepting their "dont worry, we've done this properly and everything's fine" current position. Bottom line is i think my only genuine recourse will likely be post-implementation when things move beyond "consultation" to actual breaches of employment law. Not something I'm looking forward to, TBH. Thank you, again.

Hi everyone. I just wanted to update that I've been notified by my TU rep that, following our request to see the matching process paperwork, they have now agreed to keep me at my current grade (even though it doesn't exist in the structure) - no grade reduction or competive bunfight. Great news for me, and I'm obviously very relieved however it does lay bare how extraordinarily poorly they've managed this entire process. I've asked for this to be confirmed in writing as I trust neither their motives nor competence. Is there anything else I should be pushing for before the consultation window closes to ensure they cant backtrack on this later? Thanks, again

@PieBear That is fantastic news.

I am glad your TU supported you to keep your grade and salary.

Hi @PieBear, good news that they have agreed to keep you at your current grade. Have you been offered a suitable role with which you are happy?

Thank you! Yes, they've agreed to keep my role exactly as-is; they've just added it back in to the new structure. Shows rhe power of a union holding them to account for their decisions.