Departmental restructuring

[Stevie77]

We have been told yesterday our dept is being restructured. This is a small business and our dept is only small, 2 of us and our line manager.

Anyway, the changes will be to role content (for me prob. around 25% but it's a bit unclear at the moment) and reporting lines. We have been told the plan is for it to be in place within the next couple of weeks, following a short consultation. There are no redundancies. Should there be a longer consultation period in place?

Also, it seems like the new roles will be very similar. Currently, the three of us are working at different levels (role, responsibilities & pay). We've been told our t&c will remain unchanged. I am going to query this in my consultation meeting, but this will only be the week after next. TBH, this is the bit that worries me most as I feel we're being shafted. I don't think our line manager will be suffering any major demotion but will essentially perform a very similar role to us, yet will continue to get paid as in his current role?

To those who remember my previous postings about this role, this is so ironic.

I'm currently waiting for a restructure to take place..

We've been told rather little, however, I from what we have been told is that we will have a '30 day notice period' I think this is the consultation phase you are talking about. Perhaps they are being vague when they say a couple of weeks, and you will in fact get the 30 days (which I think is the requirement)

If there is no redundancies then sounds like they will 'assimilate' you into the appropriate role and therefore as you say t&c shouldn't change.

Are you sure there are no 'hidden' agenda's ? Seems a bit odd to be doing the restructure if there aren't any real reasons, namely cost saving? Don't think they could just down grade your line manager without deleting or changing posts.

Sorry, not really much help but yes, do think you should have 30 days consultation.

So the content of your role will be changing a bit, and you'll be reporting to someone else, but everything else, including t&cs, is remaining the same?

Sounds barely like a restructuring at all, and two weeks consultation sounds perfectly adequate - what value do you feel would be added by consultation taking longer?

If you have concerns to raise that take longer to address and consider, they will no doubt extend it, but for 2 people and such minor changes in a very small business, 30 days consultation would be overkill imo.

Well, they are saying t&c will remain the same but at the moment it is not definite. At least until we get clarification on the nature of the new roles.

I don't necessarily think a 30 (or other) day consultation is required, but was unsure if there was a prescribed period.

My main concern is around the new roles, which appear to be the same level yet within the current team we have three different levels. I would not be happy carrying out an equivalent to someone else but on a lower grade. Not sure how t

Well, they are saying t&c will remain the same but at the moment it is not definite. At least until we get clarification on the nature of the new roles.

I don't necessarily think a 30 (or other) day consultation is required, but was unsure if there was a prescribed period.

My main concern is around the new roles, which appear to be the same level & grade (from the description given to us so far and from the proposed structure), yet within the current team we have three different levels and grades. I would not be happy carrying out an equivalent role but on a lower grade. Not sure how to handle this effectively.

"I would not be happy carrying out an equivalent role but on a lower grade."

But if the indication is that t&cs will remain the same then do you have any reason to think that will happen?

Thanks flowery, appreciate your input.

The indication is that the two other roles being restructured are currently on higher grades. So if t&c are not changing then it seems to me they will retain their higher grades. Unless I am missing something...

There are two questions really. If you have a grading system for roles, there is the question of what grade the new role is/should be at.

There is then the question of whether the individuals being moved into those roles should have their terms and conditions changed.

It may be that they've decided to play it safe by ring fencing your managers salary, which is fairly common, rather than cutting his pay, but that's really between him and the employer.

Do you have reason to think the new roles should be graded higher than they are proposed to be?

I don't know enough about what's being proposed, I will need to wait until the next meeting. Thanks for your advice!

Bumping this!

I need some advice on how best to approach this, would be grateful for any comment:

Since the announcement of this restructure we've had a new addition to the team, a young man. We are doing the the same role basically, for different product areas. He is getting paid, from the outset, more than me. Our experience is broadly similar, he is stronger in areas I am weaker and vice versa.

As part of the restructure our roles, and that of our colleague (who is more senior) are becoming even more similar (we've had draft role profiles and they are the same), again each of us focussing on a different product area. Basically, I am the one getting paid the least to do the same work! The role I was originally recruited for is less senior than the one proposed in the restructure, although the company are digging their heels in a bit about that. When I raised that they suggested I highlight which parts I feel "uncomfortable" with and maybe they'll be removed. I don't want that, I want the role title to reflect the seniority and the pay to reflect that too!

In a meeting today I brought the pay issue up, gently, and the response was to try and distract/dismiss me saying that an appraisal process will take place, which will set me objectives and personal development plan. Great, but why should I have to prove myself to get fairly paid, when a new recruit has basically been hired on a higher salary for same role?

I left it at the meeting at that, because it was officially recorded. My concern was recorded and I did not want it to turn it into an unpleasant discussion. I intend to go and pick this up with HR again tomorrow informally, hence need advice in how to put it across. I am serious about this, I think this could be borderline discrimination but feel I have no leg to stand on as they could come up with whatever suitable reason to dismiss me when in actual fact they are just taking the p*#ss out of me.

I have only been working at this place a few months and don't see a long term future there for myself, but don't feel they should be able to take advantage of me while I'm there!

Hi Stevie,

I am not sure I completely understand the situation as it sounds like you are not really being given all the information, but I would advise you need to be very careful here, for now at least, and work out your plan of what to do based on what you want from the available options.

You are kind of being restructured into a higher grade, but without the pay for now, and they are offering you a development plan to see if you can meet that? You are upset about that because your new colleague is paid more to do the same job, but has similar experience levels to you?

When you raised that with them they offered to remove some parts of your new role, rather than pay you more?

Hope I have understood?

Also you are not wanting to stay long term at this company?

I would start looking for a new job, whilst taking the new role, proving I could do it and then asking for the salary increase. The danger is if you can't do it they may try to performance manage you out, or dismiss you and as you haven't been there very long, you would have no come back on this as I'm sure they wouldn't be daft enough to use one of the protected reasons (discrimination etc) and they don't have to give any reason at all until you have been there over a year.

If you take the new role with bits taken out, they will never increase your pay and may still try to manage you out or dismiss you, and if you don't take any role as you haven't been there very long redundancy pay would be virtually nothing. As it is a small company there are not likely to be any other suitable roles to go for either?

I can understand why you feel shafted, but I don't think you really have many viable options? You could ask for details of all your options from their point of view and then pick the one which is best for you.

Hope you can work something out x

Thanks CoconutSponge, I'll try and clarify the situation.

The dept is being restructured, we're still in the consultation process.

At the same time, my boss recruited my colleague, for a parallel role. So we do the same work, he's got the same title etc., but is responsible for a different product line. He is getting paid more (pre restructure).

The restructure is suggesting the same role changes for both of us (and our other colleage). Same roles, same product responsibility but increased seniority. So we are both moving to parallel roles again.

When I brought up the pay issue the response was to sidetrack me as outlined above. I don't want to let it go so easily even though I will definitely not be here in a few months IYKWIM. But I want my fair and equitable pay that I feel I deserve.

I'm just really not sure how to proceed after yesterday's meeting. Do I need to take professional advise on this if I may have a case there? Do I push them informally initially? If so, what's best to say?

It sounds like the pay is kind of a seperate issue, are you sure your colleague is getting paid more than you, how do you know and have you brought this up before with anyone?

When you move to the new roles, will your colleagues pay change then? The employer won't be able to discuss this with you even if you ask them as it is confidential, and even if you asked your colleague they may say they don't want to discuss it or not tell you the truth anyway.

If you are doing similar roles both before and after with similar experience and skill sets what is the reason for the difference in pay, if there is one?

I still think your best bet for now is to take the role offered, follow the development plan and therefore build your case for increased pay whilst looking for another job, as you are planning to leave anyway soon. Also, as they are saying to do the new role equal to your colleague you must follow a development plan and that is their justification as to your different level of pay at the moment?

All other things being equal, if you are female and your colleague is male then there could be a sex discrimination angle, but if you think that might be the case then yes, I would seek professional advice as to if it would be in your interests to pursue this. Don't forget, you will need sound evidence if you are considering this option.

It is difficult to advise if informal discussion would help, without knowing the people involved. If you are fairly new and don't know them that well either, I would suggest keeping it fairly formal at the moment to avoid muddying the waters and complicating the situation any further for yourself, as they may decide you are too much hassle and want to get rid of you as I said, and you do not have many employment law rights at the moment, being fairly new to this job.

I would also be concerned about trying to push it with them when there aren't really any points to negotiate with, as I said you will need evidence and the pay of other staff is confidential information.

I'm sorry it is not really what you want to hear x

My colleague is getting paid more because the role was advertised at a higher rate via an agency who called me about it! I have no written proof but know that he is not getting paid the bottom of the scale. My reasons to think that may be all circumstantial, but isn't the burden of proof on them? His pay is not proposed to change after the restructure as far as I'm aware.

Also, I haven't mentioned him specifically when I brought up the pay issue, just said that I know I am getting paid the least of the three of us proposed to do the same role. My feeling is they would try to claim a difference in levels of experience but I would argue that it's areas of strength and weakness rather than overall difference.

So your colleague has more experience than you and is being paid via an agency, you however have no actual proof that this is the case. You did have the option of taking the agency job, if you wanted more money, but chose not to, why?

I suspect that if you try to claim the sex discrimination angle you will find yourself quickly unemployed with no comeback as they can simply deny your allegations and you have no evidence to back up what you are saying, or take it any further?

They cannot "prove" anything either way without breaching a duty of confidentiality owed to another employee. They will simply say sex was not the reason, even if you could prove you were paid differently, and there are in fact other legitimate reasons to justify that anyway, as you have said above.

Seriously, they are offering you support to do the full new role, or remove the parts you feel you cannot do, which is reasonable under the circumstances, you just need to choose which one you go for, the only other real alternative is to find another job, which will be much harder once you have been dismissed from this one, with a poor reference or none at all?

Again I'm sorry you feel shafted, but realistically if you want to stay in employment, I think those are your options, or you could seek further advice from ACAS or a Solicitor, if you are not in a Union and feel you need to.

I do not mean to sound harsh, but unfortunately, you do need to be realistic. Sorry xx

Thanks again Coconut but I am probably not describing things correctly.

My colleague doesn't have more experience than me, just different experience. My feeling is that the company would claim he has more experience to explain the pay difference.

He is not working or paid via an agency, he is a full time,
permanent employee. He was recruited via an agency.

Incompletely take on board what you are saying which is what I find most frustrating - I'm screwed if I do and screwed if I don't.

I don't feel I need more support to do the proposed role, I think it is all delay and distract tactics to divert attention from the issue, which is they have two employees doing similar or broadly similar work, now and in the proposed restructure, but they are paying one more.

Thanks again for your input

Not to worry, as you say, it works out the same in the end

I think then that the most you could reasonably do, is have another meeting with them, say you would like the full role, which you feel you could do without assistance, you are prepared to do the objectives etc. show willing and all that, and also keep quietly stating you would like to be paid fairly for what you do, and see how it goes. You are not really in a strong enough position to push it more than that, and you never know, it might work!

Just be wary of what this "restructure" may really be all be about (not so hidden agendas) as it doesn't sound like it saves any money or make any real difference at the moment, so it may be that there will soon be another "restructure" where the real plan will come to light

I would honestly start the hunt for a new job asap and see what happens with that too, Good Luck!!