Question for employment lawyers/HR redundancy specialists

[RockingMyFiftiesNot]

At a weekend gathering, a family friend told us about his work situation. All we could do was listen and suggest he speaks to the HR dept as have no experience of this but am intrigued. He works for a big company, which seems to be split into different business units. One of the business units announced that there were going to be redundancies in that area a couple of months ago , and they went into a consultation period. Friend wasn’t in that part of the business when the redundancies were announced and the consultation began. He has since moved to that business for what he thought was a better job and thought he was safe as he wasn’t working there when the consultation began . However he’s since been told that he could still be made redundant as part of that programme, even though he wasn’t part of the initial consultation. Is that allowed? Doesn’t sound right but I have no knowledge of these things We’ll see him again next week, just wondered if anyone had any knowledge of this situation or any advice we can pass on? Thanks

I am not really an expert, but would have though that if he is part of a unit, and the unit goes into consultation, then he would too (since it applies to all staff, or at least all affected units)

The bigger question is why he was offered to move across, if a consultation period had already started?

Moving into a department after consultation has started doesn't make him immune to redundancy from that department, no. Otherwise they'd end up making pre-existing staff redundant over him just because he happened to arrive after things had started, which wouldn't be particularly fair on them.

As grumpy says, it's unusual to be recruiting staff when there's consultation ongoing about potential redundancies, so that's a bit odd, but that doesn't mean those recruits must be 'safe'.

Thank you both. He was moved internally because they thought they needed his specific skills but looks like it doesn’t make him immune, even though he wasn’t part of the initial consultation. Can see how it wouldn’t be fair on the others tho

It's the job that's redundant, not the person. If they don't need that role any more they should consider whether there's suitable alternative employment for him

Yes I get that. Guess he’s just been unlucky that he’s moved from a more secure role to one that is no longer needed. It’s the timing I don’t get, why did they move him and a few weeks later don’t need his role, but then I don’t understand big business!

”He was moved internally because they thought they needed his specific skills”

If they needed those specific skills then presumably they still do, and pre-existing staff don’t have them, which means he’s unlikely to be made redundant.

That’s what I don’t understand, but of course we only know what he’s told us. Will see what he says when we next see him. I just found it a bit bizarre but not knowing his environment wasn’t sure what was on and what wasn’t

Ok. I'm not a lawyer but do get involved in a bit of this for my company.

My understanding is it's the role that's redundant not the person.

I was under the impression you cannot legally move someone from one position, into another position in the same company, then make them redundant from that position. They are protected for 12 months from moving to the new position.

I could be wrong but he needs to seek legal advice. However in reality all it will do is delay the inevitable departure.

If they have moved him into a role they know they are eliminating..then the writing is on the wall.

Consultation is on the positions they will remove. The people they then need to look to find other roles for. If not then they can make them redundant.

Guess he’s just been unlucky that he’s moved from a more secure role to one that is no longer needed

No. I'm sorry but they have done this knowing they are eliminating thr role. Im sure it's not allowed but this wasn't just some unlucky event, it was a deliberate move by his management team.

He should have asked for some certainty before he agreed to the move - Bluntness might be right.

I was under the impression you cannot legally move someone from one position, into another position in the same company, then make them redundant from that position. They are protected for 12 months from moving to the new position.

Fairly sure this is NOT true. (Speaking from experience as it happened to me). The role is redundant so technically if they make it redundant even a day after you start, it’s still within the law.

I'm not sure it is allowed, genuinely. Did you seek legal advice at the time? I was told we could not move an employee into a position we knew we were going to make redundant. Because then it becomes about the person. As such the person is protected. He does need to get legal advice.

I'm sorry it was done to you.

And agree, did he not ask for certainty? Did he really just assume?

Never heard of the 12 month thing, and I used to work as an employment law specialist

What's an employment law specialist?an employment lawyer?

As said, this was what I was told was the legal requirement in the U.K. to stop companies I assume unfairly targeting people they wish to get rid of and keeping those they wish to keep, ensuring it's s fair playing field and the focus on position elimination and subsequent redeployment.

If you think about it, if it was allowed you'd just move all your shit employees or the ones you don't like into the roles you were going to eliminate and then get rid of them. Happy days.

Anyway I strongly recommend he gets legal advice and not listen to us randoms on the Internet.

Thank you. It sounds naive now but I think because he’d been asked to move he thought he was out of scope. From what I know he wouldn’t be one of the crap people you’d move with the intention of getting rid but who knows. Spoke to him earlier and he’s not getting any satisfactory explanations, but he’s not definitely at risk, just potentially along with everyone else

”I was under the impression you cannot legally move someone from one position, into another position in the same company, then make them redundant from that position. They are protected for 12 months from moving to the new position.”

Goodness knows where you got that from but I can assure you it’s not true. Either a post is genuinely redundant or it isn’t! The fact that someone happened to have moved to the post internally 11 months previously doesn’t make it unlawful if the post is then redundant!