Is this a suitable alternative?

[zubin]

I work for a large company who deliver various different types of work - a few of the contracts are ending or reducing meaning one manager is facing hours reduction from around 32 to around 16-18 (same salary, location etc), she applied for another manager role, which is full time, it's the same level and jd as her current role, but is very different in terms of the project she will be managing. At interview she just wasn't appointable, but HR are now saying she has to be given the role she interviewed badly for and to be honest couldn't do! - is this really right and is there any way that 16-18 hours would be considered a suitable alternative??

What is so different about the project that she wouldn't be able to do it? If you just mean she wouldn't be very good, then that's something different.

You can't make someone redundant if there is a role available that is suitable in terms of being equivalent terms and conditions and skills and experience required. A cut in hours like that wouldn't be suitable, and the job which is the same job title, same job description and same level as her current one sounds much more suitable. If the role would be so different in terms of skills and responsibilities that someone in her current role wouldn't be able to do it, then it should have a very different job description.

It does sound like you don't rate her and think she wouldn't do a good job and are miffed at being lumbered with her rather than getting to choose someone else, does that sound about right? It's tough I'm afraid. Redundancy isn't a method for getting rid of poor performers, and if there's a suitable job available, she's not redundant. If she performs poorly, you can follow a performance management process to deal with it.

Thank you, and you are totally right if I am honest this is an amazing new service and I really don't rate her at all, oh well performance management it is then!!

Sorry! I know it's frustrating but that's the way it is I'm afraid.