Flowerybeanbag et al......I am trying to remember a case/precedent

[VeniVidiVickiQV]

Whereby someone had to reinterview for their job, and didnt get it? I think it was a building society vs someone....?

Any ideas?

Not ringing any bells with me I'm afraid, might it have been before my time? Feels like I've been here forever but actually it's only about 3 months or so...

dagnammit.....

Don't know it off the top of my head but can't you find it in the IRLR case citator? Either that or go onto plc (practical law.com). Its a redundancy one presumably?

Oh were you meaning a case as in a tribunal case? I was automatically thinking you meant someone on here! Oops!

Will have a trawl through things, any idea roughly how long ago?

LOL, early 90's I think....

I only know employment law as much as I had to investigate to represent myself at my own ET. I've trawled through lots in the last 2 years but I'm nowhere near qualified, but I am trying to help a friend who is being made to reapply for her existing job.

I've had a look through some of my books here, but no luck. Are you sure it was a building society? What were the facts?

Duchess - its vague....but it was to do with someone having to reapply for their own job and not getting it, but being offered alternative, lesser employment or nothing.

Oh, OK. It doesn't ring any bells...

Your friend: is the job identical?

Its potentially a legitimate course of action since its sold as selecting for redundancy in a business reorganisation situation. In a way its fairer to those involved if they can be "reinterviewed" than if they are just selected on paper using a selection matrix. If you need the case and nobody finds it though I can email my trainee tomorrow morning.

I've used the same process quite a few times. Becoming standard IMO

The offer of "lesser employment" would presumably be part of their search for alternative employment. The case might have been on the issue of what was a "suitable" alternative role perhaps??

thank you ellie

she was taken on/promoted 6 months ago alongside an equal. Now they are saying the 'budget' wont allow it. Intense workload remains the same. They are re-interviewing each to give one or the other the job, and the 'other' will be found employment (mentioned briefly of same standing/remuneration).

Not sure due process has been followed. Unclear on grounds of whether it is redundancy or.....? They've not mentioned redundancy.....

It's a pretty big organisation, btw.

Sounds like a clear redundancy. They need fewer people to perform the role. The sucessful person will not be made redundant and the other will be offered alternative employment as part of a "fair" procedure. Whether your friend has to take the alternative role depends on whether it is held out by the organisation as "suitable alternative employment". If it is and she doesn't accept it then she may not be entitled to any redundancy payment. If it isn't then she might get a redundancy payment depending on how long she's worked for them (not how long she's been doing that role).

They havent mentioned the word "redundancy" at all.

In fact, when asked if that was the case they said something along the lines of "Don't know, possibly..... nowhere near a redundancy situation... that's a long way off".

Is this not breach of trust and confidence by asking someone to reapply for their job and not stating clearly what alternatives there may be, or if they have the option of voluntary redundancy etc?

What have they mentioned in terms of suitable alternatives? How has she settled into the org? Is she performing? Is this masking a performance issue?

Don't think its a breach of trust and confidence at all. Its really quite a standard way of doing things. However they might not have followed procedure correctly if they have not explained that there is a potential redundancy situation. Difficult to tell without seeing what communication she has had. They could be selling it as a business reorgainisation and trying to avoid redundancy at this stage.

If they haven't followed a fair redundancy process and she is ultimately made redundant than she may have a claim for unfair dismissal.
Voluntary redundancy is an invitation. They don't have to ask for volunteers (although it helps to make a process fair) and if anyone volunteers they don't have to accept the offer from the volunteer (because for example the person volunteering might have skills they want to retain.)

Been there for 18 months approx.

Settled in well. Performed well hence 2nd promotion. No mention of alternatives except to say that they would find something else. It has all been incredibly vague.

she won't be entitled to a redundancy payment under statute (although that's not to say they won't give her anything) so they might genuinely be trying to find something else for her to avoid the redundancy situation. Does sound like they might be on the verge of messing up their procedure though by trying to avoid the issue.

In no way is this meant to be patronising, but sometimes in these situations people do not hear what they don't want to hear.

Anyway, at this stage I think she needs to ask informed questions about the process without sounding aggressive and avoid sounding like she is preparing a case against her employers. That way she can get clarity without muddying the employment relationship.

I take it she does want to stay there?

Yes, and in the existing role.

She has already raised a grievance though - before she spoke to me.

In the copy of the letter they finally sent her (a week and a half after her line manager informing her of the potential changes and the requirement for interview) it mentions nothing of redundancy......

Hello again, sorry crisis with DS then had to go to bed. I have had a search and can't find the case you are looking for.

Does sound like a perfectly legitimate redundancy situation. Interesting they haven't mentioned redundancy though? Depending on her correspondence and what happens, there is a possibility they haven't/won't use the correct procedure as ellehcim says.

Another point that sometimes people forget is that it's the post that is redundant, not the person. In this case it sounds as though the post is genuinely redundant, and selection interview is actually a perfectly reasonable way of deciding who will get the post. Fairer than 'last in first out' for example.
Whether an individual actually ends up being dismissed by reason of redundancy is a different issue - obviously people are frequently found alternative employment so while their original post was redundant they are not actually dismissed for reason for redundancy iyswim? Maybe her employers are getting confused by that and are not mentioning redundancy as they don't think any person needs to be redundant as such?

You say she has put in a grievance already, what has she stated as her complaint in that?

I'm sure you've found this already but here is the ACAS redundancy stuff.

Have just read through all the posts again - you say they have mentioned alternative post with equivalent status/remuneration?

It does sound as though it might be fair enough tbh...

Unless of course she is not successful and feels that the interview process was not fair in anyway, but unless/until that happens, it does sound like a reasonable thing to do where there is genuinely a business requirement for less of one type of post.

Can a case be argued as to whether the position is redundant in the first place? (And thank you fbb )