Public sector redundancy processes - role of unions in raising equality impact concerns. What's your experience?

[PublicSectorHag]

Hi all,

I have recently been through a redundancy process in public sector organisation. This process disproportionately impacted middle aged women (and left younger, male colleagues largely untouched), but in none of the meetings did either HR or the union mention an equality impact assessment and any actions that would be taken as a result of any findings.

Whilst I was actually relieved to take redundancy as I'd grown disillusioned with my organisation, I have since found myself reflecting on how disappointing the union's (Unison's) approach was. In a context where I think a lot of redundancies disproportionately affect middle aged women, often from global majority/black asian and ethnic minority communities, it's pretty shocking if unions are failing to play a role seeking to mitigate the impact.

Can I please ask others who have been through similar process what their experiences were? Was there an equality impact assessment and how was it used (if at all)? What role did unions play in flagging and challenging any equality impacts, if any?

I'm saying that the HR person if suitably trained and competent is more than sufficient to ensure non discriminatory practice, no union required.

Damn think of what you could have spent all that union membership money on instead. .

Being well trained is good, but if the impact of that training isn’t being assessed when you put it into play your confidence is just arrogance.

I have had really poor experiences in unions and don’t join them anymore, but it’s because they don’t push for things like assessment of decisions that has put me off.

I'm sure the impact of my assessment will be tested the minute someone raises a grievance or ET claim.

Hasn't happened yet.

I’ve got a bridge to sell you, if you think any employer follows that process properly.

Well, there are ways to engineer an outcome. But we are subtle and obviously don't use anything that can be challenged.

Unison have demonstrated they dont give a toss for women. The UK's trade union watchdog ruled that UNISON breached its rulebook and the law by allowing a transgender woman to stand for a women-only seat on its national executive council. Certification Officer Stephen Hardy upheld a member's complaint, stating the election violated rules following a Supreme Court precedent defining "woman" biologically.

Changes like increases in the use of AI will disproportionately impact particular roles like admin for e.g., done by people who are much more likely to be women and often have other protected characteristics, many of whom may not have been invested in, supported, had chances to progress. Do we just write them off?
Genuinely wondering: what is a company supposed to do in that case? If there is less work for a specific department (admin), are they supposed to make people from other departments redundant and retrain some of the admin people to work in sales/IT support/marketing/etc? Doesn’t seem very efficient or even fair.

No but you could, for example, anticipate this think about how to mitigate the impact by encouraging people in at risk groups/skills sets to develop their skills sets. The Apprenticeship Levy is a potential was of supporting this.