Restructuring - unfair process

[getupdressandshowup]

Asking for a friend: there is a restructure going on. Let's say there will be 2 positions but there are 3 people currently employed to handle the work. The geographical area covered is quite large and involves regular travel to company sites. Person 1 has interview on a Monday and is telephoned 10 minutes later and told they have secured/kept their position. Person 2 is interviewed the next day (Tuesday) and is told at the interview 'you'll hear soon'. Person 3 is interviewed the following day (Weds) and is told you'll hear soon. Person 2 receives a telephone call after Person 3 has been interviewed and is told 'you were not successful'. Do you think this process was fair? Why was Person 1 successful before the other two candidates have even been interviewed? Would you take this further? Now Person 2 has effectively been made redundant. Was this a sham? Please let me know your thoughts.

Were the 3 interviews for identical posts? If so, it was not conducted fairly. Whether it's worth a formal complaint would depend on the length of service of the aggrieved party and also how the restructure was managed generally. Might be worth a call to union or ACAS.

Good practice would have been to wait until after all the interviews to say who was successful or not. However, were you to complain all they would need to show is that the two retained candidates scored highest, the lapse in procedure would only be relevant if this was not the case.

Even if they did uphold the complaint, all they would need to do is restart the process, and if they did that I'd put money on the results coming out the same.

It's frustrating, but unless their record keeping is very lax, and their HR particularly stupid, I can't see you getting anywhere with this.

My friend is actually a relative and says the positions were identical. H'es worked there just over three years, worked hard and always covered colleagues holidays and did the overtime he was asked to do. Obvs I don't know all the details or the other candidates but I wanted other people's views before advising him whether to seek legal advice. there is no union but there is a HR dept.

It sounds like they didn't handle it well but that there wouldn't be a case to answer. In reality, it was likely a foregone conclusion before any of the interviews took place and that the interviews were purely procedural, though no one would ever admit that.

Hopefully he will get some kind of package and move on to a new and better role.

Were they all put on notice of possible redundancy

I believe every company must have a fixed Redundancy Policy eg 30 days notice, fixed set of meetings / interviews etc which must take place, priority over other candidates for alternative positions.

I don't think you can just announce a restructure, interview then say 'unlucky' to the one who didn't get it?!?

ACAS definitely.

My relative was told approx a month ago there would be a restructure and that the 3 positions were being reduced to 2. I think telling Person 1 ten minutes after the interview they'd got one of the 2 positions was not fair on the other two (who then knew before being interviewed that they only stood a 50/50 chance at that point). Like someone said above the decision may have already been made prior to any interviews but I feel the appointment of the 2 posts should have occurred after the final interview. He's my relative and I'm looking out for him. I've been job hunting a bit for him on Mumsnet and emailing him jobs he might potentially consider. Perhaps he needs a less precarious type of job and one where he can cut down his overheads and fares which might mean he could take a lower paid job but also have more time to do fun things.