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?

Well if she was actually being made redundant because of it rather than potentially moved to another post, then yes, you would argue that it was unfair dismissal if it was not a true redundancy situation.

It's essentially an internal restructuring isn't it, with a change in business requirements meaning that less of one post can be afforded in the budget? But instead of making the other person redundant they are planning to move them to an equivalent job elsewhere.

Does your friend have reason to believe she won't be selected for her existing job in the interview situation?

If she isn't selected and feels that budget and workload do in fact support and require 2 of them, then she should bring a grievance about it.

To take this as far as it could possibly go, it's difficult to see what else she could do other than the internal grievance procedure. It's not unfair dismissal because she wouldn't have been dismissed. Only possibility really is constructive dismissal but I really wouldn't say that moving someone to a different job on same terms and conditions would be considered a fundamental breach of contract of any kind. Or sex discrimination if the other person is a man and your friend has reason to believe in a fair selection process it should have been her not him.

I do think your friend has been a weeny bit premature putting a grievance in about it before the selection has actually taken place. Firstly because she may have no reason for complaint at all if she is selected. And if she isn't selected and wants to make a complaint about it, she should do it then, when the act has actually happened.

It's annoying and frustrating but I really can't see any legal problem with what they're proposing to do.

Yes, I rather fear that she may have jumped the gun. (Now she feels her 'card is marked' for having complained). Other employee is same sex so no issue there.

Her greivance encompassed being 'informally' told about having to re-interview for her existing job, and then getting no formal acknowledgement or letter until 9 days later.

Not having any alternatives discussed or mentioned prior to the interview, or what would happen if they werent selected. That the interview criteria is not objective enough. That the only explanation for changes is that the budget for this year, last year, and next year is for 1 person (despite there having been 2 for the last 6 months). That the workload requires 2, hence her appointment in the first place.

Basically, she has gleaned information purely from 'informal' discussions, and is anxious, and uncertain about her future with the company having not had reassurances or proper explanations.

Wanting more information and better explanations etc is absolutely fair enough, it sounds as though they could do with handling it slightly better and being a bit more clear about what's happening/alternatives etc.

Unfortunately putting in a grievance at this stage won't have endeared her to anyone, which won't help. Obviously they will need to select fairly just as in a straight recruitment situation, but a bad impression having been created before she even is interviewed isn't going to do her any favours.

Did she attempt in a formal way to get more detail/discussion about the situation before putting in a grievance?

I dont know, but knowing her, I would say she did. I can find out though.

Do find out - obviously if she has met with manager/written to HR or whatever to request these details and been refused them it's slightly less of an issue to put in a grievance.

I would still be inclined to wait until the deed is done though. She can log everything that has happened, correspondence she's had, meetings etc so she has everything she might need, go through the process, then if she is not selected, put together a grievance about it at that stage.

She can write to HR or whoever it says in her grievance policy withdrawing her grievance in the meantime. Even if she ends up putting it back in again, it will have more teeth if it's logged once the actions have been taken and includes everything.

It sounds as though your friend is pretty convinced that she wouldn't be selected. Is this because she was recently promoted to the post?

Just asking in case there might be other issues here. You wouldn't necessarily know of course, but unless she is the kind of person who worries a lot generally, it does seem to be a bit of a premature overreaction at this stage.

Yes, I think she is concered that she wont be selected. Not entirely sure why though. Either way, one of them loses out though. Awful situation.

I agree with ninety nine per cent of what flowerybeanbag has said however I would view the situation slightly differently. They can't force her to take another role within the organisation since she was employed to do a particular role (unless her contract contains a lot of flexibility). If they tried then I think it would be a fundamental breach of contract. This being the case, if she is unsuccessful but is offered another role in the organisation then she does not have to take it and she will be made redundant from her current role. Refusing an offer of "suitable alterative employment" means that she would not be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment but she is not entitled to one anyway.
She could still bring a claim for unfair dismissal (since she will have been dismissed) either on the basis that there was no true redundancy situation - this is incredibly unlikely to succeed since if a business feels it only needs one member of staff to do a role then the tribunals are very reluctant to interfere. This is really only an option if for example she felt the whole scenario had been engineered just to get rid of her. The other option would be on failings in procedure and here she might have some chance depending on the process they follow. At the moment it looks like they are on the verge of messing up the procedure and so tactically, if she really thinks she will lose out to the other employee she might be better keeping her mouth shut.

sorry should add I was working on the assumption that the other job would be a suitable alternative, I didn't say that did I?!

Just to add to what others have said, although a redundancy procedure does require you to be clear about what is going on, I have known employers structure things this way and I think it's ok legally.

Employers often want to do internal restructurings. However, if they are really sure that they can offer good internal alternatives, they often postpone using the R word until after they have done the initial review and there is someone clearly likely to be affected (and that person isn't happy with the restructured role offered). Provided they have been careful in what they have done so far, there is no magic in using the word 'redundancy' and, provided they follow the proper procedures before any termination decision, what they have done is not necessarily unfair (legally).

Sorry, I am sure that none of this is what your friend hoped to hear.