Redundancy - suitable alternative employment

[Eliza70]

I am currently on mat leave and have been told my job is at risk of being made redundant as the need for my role has diminished. I am the only person who does this job and the only person out of 130 employees who is being made redundant.

I have been offered three alternative jobs but none are the same level of seniority or money. I have pointed out that the T&C are not the same as my current job and my employer has said that it is up to me to decide if they are "suitable".

I really don't know what to do. I have another meeting with them on Monday and they have said if I turn the jobs down then I will trigger the redundancy process.

I have spoken to ACAS and EHRC and they were helpful but to be honest I think I just want out now and the thought of taking a tribunal case is very daunting. Any advice, info or suggestions?

On what basis do you think you might have a tribunal case? If the need for your role has diminished and you are the only person doing it then it sounds as though the redundancy is probably genuine.

If the other jobs are not the same salary or seniority you are within your rights to say they are not suitable alternatives and claim redundancy instead.

I don't know really!

No one covered my mat leave, the job was divided among other people so it might look as if the role has dimished but really its being covered by other people. Plus we are still paying consultants for advice when we could do the work in-house.

I thought that the alternative jobs offered had to be on the same or not substantially different terms and conditions?

I'm also confused as to where in the redundancy process we are!

It's best practice to offer you whatever jobs there are, even if they are not suitable; they are not restricted to offering just things that are on the same or similar t&c.

Is there a job available that is suitable but is not being offered you? If that's the case then that's wrong, but they are not wrong to offer you jobs that aren't suitable, as long as jobs that are suitable (if there are any) are offered you as well. If you refused unsuitable jobs and they then refused to pay you redundancy, then that wouldn't be fair. But it doesn't sound like that's what they intend to do is it?

If no one has covered your maternity leave it sounds like the need for your role has diminished unfortunately, in that they don't need anyone doing that job anymore. Are the consultants doing the job you were doing? You might have an argument there, that there is not a genuine redundancy situation.

No, the only jobs being offered are unsuitable. I know they have to offer them but I thought that they would have to enhance the T&C so they were the same as my current post.

The need for the job has not dimished. As I said the work is still there it is just divided among other staff. All the tasks still exisit.

It just seems very unfair.

The need for your role has diminished. If they didn't take on a replacement for you and can get other staff to do your work as well as their own then your role is no longer needed.

Why have someone doing something when the existing staff can do it and you can reduce headcount by 1.

Its not unfair, its just life. Sometimes its good sometimes its shit.

Eliza70, sorry about your situation.

It is a unspoken risk of taking maternity leave that the company realises your role can be covered by others and they can actually do without you.

They don't have to increase the salary or change the t&c of whatever job is available, no. Otherwise you'd end up with senior managers whose jobs are redundant doing receptionist jobs on ridiculous salaries. That's extreme, but you get my point.

The need for your role has diminished, even if the responsibilities are still being covered somewhere else. That's often what happens with redundancy - it's not that the tasks end just like that, more that the company realises they can cover the work equally as well or to an acceptable level without paying someone to do just those tasks. If you were an junior administrator and your employer made you redundant, someone would still have to do the filing, for example, but the company might feel that several other people could do a bit each to save the need for your post.

It's a shame for you, but on the face of it it sounds as though your employer aren't doing anything unfair as such.

If I turn these jobs down will I lose any redundancy payment I may be entitled to?

If you turn them down, you will be made redundant and therefore entitled to redundancy payments.

Http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-46.php3?id_article=1756

it says here that if u turn down alternative suitable role you forfeit Any redundancy pay

hairy, that article makes it clear that the employee only loses the right to redundancy pay if the alternative employment offered is:

"It must be the same as, or not substantially different from the previous work and must be suitable for the employee"

That is clearly not the case here. So OP is still entitled to redundancy pay.

That's why I put 'alternative suitable role' in my post ;)

I guess the issue will be whether it is deemed by employer and employee to be 'alternative and suitable' - and whether either party wants to push the issue.

This is what I am worried about, that they consider the alternatives to be "suitable" and will penalise me if I don't take them.

I am hoping to appeal to their better nature, I think the rest of the staff will be stunned that I am being made redundant given the nature of the work we do and that my baby was born with SN.

And they wonder why they get poor results in the staff opinion survey. Sheesh!

suitible is all in the detail. If your on 40k and they ask you to take a 39k role then its suitible. If your on 9k and they want you to go to 8k thwn its slightly different.

On about £38k and they are proposing £26k!!!

Such a big pay cut wouldn't be 'suitable', so you are fine to refuse it and still get your redundancy.

What are you hoping to get from their 'better nature?'

Obviously I don't know anything about the work you do, but given they've managed without anyone covering your job for several months do you really think everyone will be so stunned that your employer felt there was no need for anyone in your post? I'm sorry to hear your baby was born with SN but do you genuinely think that should have affected their decision?

It's rotten to be made redundant but it really doesn't sound as though they've done anything other than make a valid business decision and follow best practice by offering you other jobs that are available even if they don't happen to be suitable for you. Sometimes people would rather take a paycut than lose their job altogether so they are not being unreasonable by offering those jobs to you.

Yes, I do think people will be stunned! I don't want to go into too much detail. But thanks for all your advice on here.

Flowery would you mind if I emailed you through the address on your profile?