Managment bullying over redundancy

[anotherglass]

DH has been acting up in a managerial role for 4 years but the post was never made substantive, in spite of his requests. He has now been told that his job is at redundancy risk, and faces being redeployed to another role, not matched to his current pay band, but one before current job. The effect would be a demotion and pay cut of £5k a year. He is public sector and Human Resources argue that they can do this, because technically he was never appointed to the role, in spite of succeeding at interview. I don't think this is fair given the fact that he has been in the role for 4 years; he is not a probationer, but well established in the job. Any legal beagles able to give us a view on whether we can challenge? Many thanks.

Was he given managerial pay increase?

Which job is being made redundant. The one he is acting up into or his job he did before acting up (the one he never moved on from).

Yes he was given a pay increaese of £5k above prior job. The job being made redundant is the position he has been 'acting' up in for the past 4 years.

Tell him to ask his trade union.

Well, I would say that the legal position is likely to be that he has effectively been appointed to this role as he has been doing the job for 4 years and been paid accordingly, and that the HR dept have simply been inefficient in not providing the right paperwork. That is the usual case with contracts, if the employer has not provided a proper contract for the job you are doing, then you have to look at "custom and practice" to establish what the contract is.

I am not a legal bod, but have had some experiance in these issues.

Hope this can be confirmed by a legalperson.

Lucinda, I would not rely on trade union - they are often useless at dealing with an individual employee's rights.

Dancing Hippo, That is a sweeping generalisation.

Were you on Acid when you gave that reply.

I would suggest he rejects any role offered at the lower rate as not being suitable alternative employment. 'Suitable alternative' means suitable for his skills and experience, ie similar tasks, responsibilities and seniority, and the terms and conditions must be no less favourable. A role with a demotion and pay cut would clearly not be suitable alternative to the job that is redundant.

'Acting up' should always be for a defined period, either during a maternity absence, or pending recruitment. It shouldn't be an ongoing thing, and if they've made no attempt to fill the role in a substantive sense and he's been in it four years, they are talking nonsense in my view.

Thank you very much for the very good input. DH did speak to the union rep this week but she wasn't very helpful ( that's why I came here ). Next step is to speak to a lawyer from the Union. If anyone is interested I can update the thread.

If this is a Civil Service Agency I can understand the management attitude.

It depends what the substantive grade of your DH is.

Lucinda - I think my post is justified by anotherglass's reply above:

"Thank you very much for the very good input. DH did speak to the union rep this week but she wasn't very helpful"

I rest my case.

Yes please do update anotherglass.

ROFL at anotherglass's comment immediately validating DancingHippo's acid-infused opinion of TU reps.

I may be on drugs but that don't mean I ain't right!