Employment law expert or advice/experience ?

[Noangelbuthavingfun]

Looking for some guidance from employment law experts AND / OR experiences any of you may have been through...
Never thought I'd be in this situation. Been with company 23 months...April 10th will be 2 years. No issues till November just gone. Have a global role. Got promoted in October. Jan a new dotted line boss was introduced... they are a contractor only and due to status we cannot report into them on the system hence dotted line. They sit in a different country.
Fast forward this week ànd have just been shown a new org chart with my role effectively still there but now given to a person I manage. No discussion with me by either boss. Other roles on org chart some with names but none with my name on. Been told don't worry we will tell u where you fit in.... Real boss not present, HR not present, no forewarning and no follow up. No job spec...nothing.
Effectively my role still exists but in a different country (peer role still exists with name on chart in same country) so they cannot claim a business reason.
Previous soft discussion mentioned flippantly with dotted line boss /contractor that they want me to do more business development type work.. That's not my role today nor something I want to do. Nothing since until this org chart.
My question is this : they cannot change my Role without consultation can they ? Its effectively a demotion in my view as no other role on org chart is the same as mine ... no HR or job description...etc.
Where do I stand? What are my next steps to protect myself ?
I want a fair and equitable option with a clear job description and reasoning for thd changes plus an option of redundancy if its not what I want to do. Surely this is what the process should be?
Also I'm.pretty sure a contractor cannot make these changes legally ?
Help me out.... I'm ready to fight !!

Sorry, you aren't going to like this.

Right now they can get rid of you easily, and boring the two year mark doesn't make it a lot harder. You may be ready to fight - and that's my inclination too, so I really hate telling you this. There is no fight to be had and you'll lose.

Regardless of contractual notice, you must get to two years less a week (statutory notice) to even be able to claim anything. You aren't far off. But it's no protection in reality.

A contractor can make any changes they like, because they aren't changing anything - the employer is making the change.

They can offshore anything they want to offshore. There is not a thing you can do to stop them.

Do they have to consult? Yes. Do they need to give a damn about your opinion? No.

At best, they may have to offer redundancy. At possibly two years, that's next to nothing.

There is no fair and equitable option that will meet your definition. You could be looking a a few weeks pay, or a job you don't want. Either way, stay looking for another job. This one is going nowhere fast.

Sorry.

Thanks- even if I can stretch it to 2 years and get 3 weeks pay (they will do min statutory I've been told) that's something . It's more the principle here. No process has been followed and that's the issue. Even if I walk away It's the knowledge that I've been treated fairly that counts. Consultation etc... I may like what they offer as a role or I may not. The point Is surely if a role is being changed this drastically a consultation is in order at min

Any other examples or advice ? How does notice period factor into the 2 years though - does that count at all to get over line 2 yr ?

The only notice that gets you over the 2 year line is the one week statutory notice - not contractual notice.

And I think you may have an exaggerated idea of what a consultation involves. A "soft discussion" - in other words informing you that there will be some changes coming and what those might involve - issuing a new organisation chart and a statement that they will be talking to you about what that means for you (assuming they then do that) is quite adequate in law for a consultation. Basically, a consultation simply means nothing more than telling you what their intentions are, listening to your comments, and deciding whether your comments make any difference to their thinking. And that is it. If there are larger numbers of people involved in potential redundancy, then there may be a need to involve staff reps and /or unions, but even then, it is often no more than what I have outlined writ a little larger. In reality the "consultation" is often meaningless.

Thanks- but should HR not be involved in said consultation and my thoughts sought . Even if it makes no difference to them? I thought hr has to be involved otherwise its not consultation
The flippant way it was brought up before was like a brain fart and my thoughts were not even sought . If that gets away as "consultation" I despair. There's not even a meeting in the diary that proves that ever happened

Sorry but I am afraid that you will have to despair. People often think that employment law offers so much more than it does, and in the end the only arbiter of whether something is lefgally fair or not is an employment tribunal. Good practice may dictate a formal process, although often that formal process is not much more than a written version of what I just told you. But no - HR do not have to be involved. There is no legal requirement.

Your current position is that you are at risk of redundancy because your role no longer exists (the fact that it exists in another country is irrelevant - it no longer exists in the UK so the post is going/gone). If there are up to 19 people at risk (and I assume not) there are literally no legal definitions of what consultation looks like. Nothing at all. They can literally have it done and dusted in a day.

If it is 20 or more there are some rules they have to follow, and some minimum timescales, but no matter what anyone tells you about "meaningful consultation" it is incredibly easy to make it far less than meaningful and get away with it.

The only test in law that might apply to you is that they need to offer you any possible alternative employment that might be available to avoid unfair dismissal - if you get to the magic 2 years service. But be very clear - what you think is a suitable alternative and what the law thinks will, I guarantee you, be very different things. So your comment that you view a possible role as a demotion - well no that isn't relevant, especially since it is possible for an employer to argue, in the right circumstances, that an ACTUAL demotion is a reasonable alternative. And if you choose to refuse a suitable alternative you may be kissing any redundancy pay farewell - legally they can not pay it if you refuse a suitable alternative. Again, the arbiter of what is suitable can only ever be a tribunal - and they are often a lot harsher about what it means than you would think. Less pay - possibly suitable. Lesser terms - also posssibly suitable. Don't like the role - do not even think they will side with you on that one!

Sorry, but if this is just you, then they can make it a very uphill struggle, and what you want and what you may get aren't likley to be remotely similar. If you see a job that suits you elsewhere, go for it. I can promise you that that is the best and only way to really protect yourself.

@Quveas well that's just utter shit. How is that even fair? No wonder people join unions ! I'm gobsmacked. I've never seen anything handled so appalingly and tbh I don't want to work for a place that doesn't have common decency to inform properly. I've been so stressed out by it. I feel like I want to go to tribunal just to make a point regardless of if I won.
Thanks for replying ....

Yes it is. Which is why I've been in a union for 50 years! Unfortunately most people these days don't realise why they should be in a union until it is too late to join one. I understand what you are saying about a tribunal but don't do it - although it doesn't happen a lot, employers can claim costs for vexatious claims!

Unfortunately what you are describing isn't at all unususal, espcially with smaller employers. But in all honesty, even with the bigger ones, consultation is often little more than a paper exercise to tick some boxes before they do exactly what they were going to do all along