What happens in a restructure two staff want redundancy?

[FlippingEggs]

I have a permanent senior management position, in an organisation. Because of a contract ending (that my salary is paid from 100%) in June, I should be facing redundancy when this ends if no other contract is obtained.

There is another manager, same grade, whose role is not paid for by any one single contract and is part of core services.

However, the other manager is retirement age and experienced a lot of poor health with a lot of absence but not in a financial position to retire for some time.

I want the redundancy when my contract ends. However, I believe my manager will want to restructure in an attempt to get rid of the other manager and retain me. If she does this, we will put against each other. However, with the redundancy pay, my colleague could afford to finally leave. But I want to leave too (whole other story. I hate it there).

So, if there is a restructure, and we are both at risk, could I be forced to stay against my will and effectively given the other managers job? Or could we both take redundancy?

Sorry if it is vague but keen not to divulge too many identifying details.

FWIW, I am looking for other work, but the redundancy pay is generous enough as an incentive to stick it out. I actually like my job, it is my boss and the organisation I want to leave.

Not sure if this helps but my colleague and I were both put forward for redundancy. In my case, it was clear cut as the role was relocating north. However, colleague was deemed as surplus. We both wanted redundancy however in the end my colleague was retained and retrained.

If it was the same rules as my public sector job then you'd have to apply otherwise you'd be classed as not taking an available job which is a clause in the redundancy policy - I'd say read through your HR policies for redundancy and redeployment

If they offer you an alternative role instead of redundancy than it'd be up to you to argue that then new role isn't suitable and they should pay you redundancy. If they offered you a job on same grade/salary in a different department it would be very difficult to argue for redundancy.

More detailed info:

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/redundancy/your-employer-offers-you-another-job/

I think that the person who isn't offered redundancy ...isn't offered redundancy. I mean, there's nothing to stop you resigning but if they can argue that other role is similar and you should be prepared to do it, then there's not much argument you can make.

I recently took redundancy because of the payment and I do know a few people who managed to get redundancy in circumstances similar ish to yours, but they had to go forward and argue that the role they were being changed to was not similar enough and that therefore, their current role should effectively be considered as redundant.

good luck - I know what it's like to really want redundancy!!

If I was the manager here, I would declare both posts at risk, rejig the job description for the remaining job and invite you both to apply. It would depend on interview performance but you would be more likely to get the post, Where I was, if you didn't apply you would effectively be dismissing yourself.
However, as your job is 100% funded from the contract that is ending there is a good case for declaring your post redundant.
Like pp said, have a good read of the compancy policies on redundancy.

Hmmm, it looks like a no win for me. I should have said, the other manager manages teams that offer different services than mine and these are set to continue. My job would remain the same in so far as I would be managing staff to deliver services, but the specialisms differ somewhat.

Hmm. Get advice from ACAS. You might be able to argue that the difference in specialism means that the jobs are not comparable- it depends how they are assessed.

If you are both at risk of redundancy and you effectively get given the other person’s job, he/she would quite likely have a claim for unfair dismissal, however that obviously doesn’t help you if they would not pursue it.

You can only look at it from your own point of view and ask two questions, is your own job genuinely redundant (yes) and is the job being offered you as an alternative suitable for you in terms of your skills and experience, level of remuneration etc.

If the new job is suitable, then that’s tough, you’ll either have to accept it or resign.

Hmmm. Tough one. Tread carefully when showing your hand and do not make it clear that you are looking for another job. Where redundancy was concerned my former organization took the view “We are not going to pay someone to leave who would have left anyway.”

You need to be very careful. Ultimately, if tjeircimte tion is to get rid of them but can't afford for both of you to be made redundant/need one manager, thry will do everything in their power to keep you within the legality of the law. They will get advise from HR in how to write the new post to ensure the requirements are close enough to what you need to do. You need to check how similar the job would need to be to be classed acceptable for a shift in role. It can be as low as 50%.

Of course it depends how much redundancy could be for both of you and how pressure the organisation is under not to lose funds due to redundancy. I certainly wouldn't count on it and don't assume that the end of the contract means the end of your employment. If you think of it, many people would fight for the opposite of what you want.

Thank you for the advice. It seems such an underhand and expensive way to get rid of someone they should have performance managed out if they weren't happy. Her redundancy payout would be almost double mine.

Unfortunately it is very very common to use a 'redundancy' as a way of exiting someone with performance issues. Trying to performance manage someone out who has been in the organisation a long time is a nightmare even with cast iron evidence of their poor performance, it's long winded (the law quite rightly requires the person be given a fair chance to show they can improve their performance and in most jobs this means at least a 6 month period before results can be seen), and often ends up being legally risky (the cost of defending an employment tribunal mount up very quickly even if your case is solid). It is highly undignified and stressful for the employee, horrible for the manager and really difficult/demoralising for colleagues/team members too. Add in the fact your colleague is close to retirement age and in poor health (disabled?) means that a capability dismissal, even one properly handled has discrimination/unfair dismissal written all over it. I have some sympathy with your employer for finding a convenient 'redundancy' excuse that allows a much easier/kinder exit all round. And I'm afraid as others have said I can't see that they are doing anything legally wrong here, providing the role is 'suitable' they are not obliged to offer you redundancy over your colleague. In this situation in my organisation we would probably offer you both voluntary redundancy and then if you both applied, make an assessment of who to let go, normally cost would be a factor but the poor performance of your colleague might well mean we chose to retain you instead.

Not great for you of course but perhaps just take this as your opportunity of the contract ending to gracefully bow out of the organisation too, even without compensation, hopefully since you are in good health and clearly a good performer finding a new role won't be too difficult?

It depends how the organisation 'pool' the jobs.

Your manager could determine that you're in a 'pool of one' because of the way your post is funded.

Alternatively they could look more widely and determine that the selection pool is bigger, thus including your colleague. But if your colleague does a similar role to other people, who's roles are funded in a similar way to your colleagues, then really ALL of these people should be 'pooled' together with yourself and one of you selected.

You say you are entitled to redundancy pay so I presume you've been there more than two years. The pooling bit is really at management's discretion. But if you are wrongly moved so that your colleague can be treated as redundancy as a sham, I suppose you could theoretically resign and claim that you've been constructively unfairly dismissed and make a claim for unpaid redundancy pay. But this is a narrow argument and it would be painful.

Believe it or not it's not so difficult to manage a situation where someone isn't performing due to ill health or lack of capability. It just needs good policies, strong knowledge of the employment framework and a fair approach. It needn't take 6 months.

Realistically if your employer decides to take the easy option here and make someone else redundant other than you, there won't be a great deal you can do.

Work out what your redundancy pay would be and decide whether it's worth an unpleasant and messy fight. If not, then look for something else and move on. Don't worry about bowing out and being gracious for your colleague's sake though.