Redundancy situation

[Positivelypatient]

Hi, just wondered if anyone has experience either as an employee or an employer in a redundancy situation. My DD has a consultation meeting today where she will learn whether she is one of two employees doing the same role being made redundant.

I can see from what she has said that the employer are following proper process so thats not an issue hopefully.

My question is, and forgive me we are probably clutching at straws, if you have two meetings back to back - would you be telling the first person in the first meeting that they are keeping their job? or would you be telling them they are being made redundant?

I know how it kinda works when you are giving someone a job - you phone the successful candidate first, so with that logic would I be right in thinking they'd tell the 'successful' person first?

What meetings has she had so far. In my experience unless there is a clear person you want to keep usually with such a small selection you start by explaining what the redundancy package is, providing a statement of what would be given in the full package and asking both candidates if either of them want to accept redundancy or if they want to continue.

That can sometimes resolve the problem with as little dispute as possible.

If neither wants to take redundancy then there is usually a selection process, either interviewing or assessment/performance based to determine who will stay.

They should also provide details of any other roles available in the company and anyone at risk of redundancy should get preferential treatment in the recruitment of those roles.

@FatAgainItsLettuceTime thank you for your quick reply - so far a group within the company were told last Weds that their jobs were 'at risk' and that 1-2-1 consultation meetings would happen soon. DD had hers on Monday this week and was told about the redundancy package she would be entitled to and the criteria for the decisions.

She now has a meeting today and the other person has theirs after.

She has only been there 6 months whereas the other person has been there possibly 2 years+ albeit for the most part in a different role so in terms of experience in the same job as DD, its equal as they started the role together.

The order of meetings may have little relevance, but all things being equal (and we don't know that they are) most employers will choose your daughter for no better reason than she doesn't get a redundancy payment - those are only available (unless the employer has very unusually good terms) to people who have been there for 2 years or more.

@Jalisco thanks for your thoughts, she was told the selection would be based on a performance criteria rather than who had been there over 2 years but we shall see! I'd have thought in this day we'd have gone past using LIFO as a way to select for redundancy. What a waste of skills and talent.

Is not LIFO. Which is actually quite dangerous for an employer as it may be deemed discrimination in law. But cost is a fair consideration in law. And not only does someone with under two years service get no redundancy payment, but it is also almost impossible to make any legal claim for dismissal. From an employers point of view, its impossible to prove performance criteria in a court of law - the employer decides that and no court will override their decision on that. So it's very safe grounds to select on. And impossible to really quantify. Of course not all employers would think about these things. But I'd be lying if I said they were in the majority.

Unfortunately it looks like my DD will be the one being made redundant, her meeting today consisted of being told her scores against their criteria and then told a decision would be made on Friday. Talk about dragging out the pain. The person she spoke to did say that her opposite number was told he is unlikely to be made redundant so that's pretty much saying it without saying it. I'm so disappointed for her and really quite annoyed with the company as she's only been there 6 mths and it was a new role.

Oh that's a shame. Will she get a redundancy payment? If not, could she maybe ask for one?
Is she in a union?

Is that part of the process? The other person being told it's unlikely to be them? I'd be extremely unhappy about that and questioning the process.

@bluejelly she's been told what amounts to 2 months wages, sadly not in a union and having only been there 6 months I doubt they'd be of much help in this case. Yes @poorbuthappy its pretty crap that she's been left to draw her own conclusions as to the end result that's why it seems a bit inhuman, seems suspicious also that the other person isn't as qualified. I think she's done with the lot of them now. Instead of feeling at the mercy of their decision she's taken her power back and is looking to the future. Bloody shame though and feel very helpless as a mother right now.

I'm sorry but it wasn't entirely surprising given her length of continuous service. Two months pay would be quite generous though unless that is the contractual notice - she wouldn't be normally due anything but her notice and they could make her work it! But on the plus side, at least she has found out what the employer is like before she invested too much in them. Redundancies can be unavoidable, and everyone knows that, but dragging it out and sending mixed messages is really cowardly.