Redundancy and ring fencing - does this sound fair?

[Culabula353]

So sizeable restructure including redundancies announced at work today. Collective consultation process beginning.

Lots of people at risk but many people also ring fenced for new roles (more people than jobs) and a few straight mapped into new roles where there was a match of numbers of people to roles. So far so standard.

I'm head of department for a team who sit adjacent to another team with their own head of department. Managers and Officers in both teams. There's always been a struggle to define exactly where the boundaries are between our teams which has often caused confusion as there's inevitable overstepping and crossover. Predictably in the restructure the work of these teams are being merged. There's an overall headcount reduction so both teams out at risk but the new manager and officer roles have been ring fenced for members of both teams to apply for as they're considered able to carry out the new roles.

However, I have been put at risk and the other dept head has been mapped straight into the new department head role and not out at risk. There are no jobs ring fenced for me. This just doesn't seem to make sense or be fair does it?

For context I've been in this role for 18 months (6 years in the company) and worked in that team as a manager prior to that. The other department head was also a manager in that team and had been in an acting up role for most of last year. In Sept they advertised to make the head of that dept role permanent and she got it. By that point the senior team recruiting for it would have been planning this restructure and known cuts were coming. Also the job title of the role she got had the new team title in it, not team name as it was then. The job description almost exactly matches the one she's now been mapped into with one sentence changed to reflect part of my role.

I'm trying to figure out if I have any chance of challenging this. Because her current job description is almost identical and mine isn't I reckon HR will just say it's a straight match. But my job description is 2 years old, a bit out of date in terms of reflecting the work me and my team do, and the language is just different. I just feel like they wrote the new one, hired someone into it just before announcing a restructure and sidelined me in the process.

In my experience, yes you could challenge it and yes, you might have a good case, but for whatever reason they have already decided they want her to do this role and not you so the outcome will probably be the same. No harm in making HR squirm on this point though and get them to explain the rationale as it does sound unfair.

Thanks @musicmum75 I agree they clearly want me gone which is baffling as I'm great at my job, both teams love me and I've way more experience than other dept head in both teams. Honestly I'm so annoyed that I don't really see my future there now, but in the back of my mind I know the job market is rough right now so fighting to keep my job might be worthwhile.
I did suspect they'll fight anything that delays the consultation timescales and since putting the other head at risk would do that they won't be happy.

I would definitely query it for your own peace of mind but I wouldn't get your hopes up that it will save your job. Good luck! I have a real hatred for sneaky HR moves like this.

If you are more experienced, maybe you are just more expensive?

This.

You need to find out what criteria they are using to identify at risk roles and for them to explain why yours is different to the other manager.

It's marginal. We have transparent pay grades Naomi started on bottom of level and have had one 3% increase since then. She's now on what I was on before that increase. Also I'm 0.8 fte and she's full time.

The line is that if your current role is a 70% match for the new one then you're in the pool of people it's ring fenced for. I would argue that it is according the work I do but my older job description isn't as clear on it and the language is phrased differently. Hers, being newly created just before the restructure, is a 99% match.

I'm going to do a comparison of mine and the new one tomorrow to make the case that it's over 70%. I think the real sense of unfairness comes from her being recruited into a role just before all this happened, knowing it was coming. Indo feel they should have waited and it should have been ring fenced for me really.

Is it because they are full time?

Update your JD to reflect what you do asap.

They've obviously decided (for whatever reason) that this person is going into that role. So while you could challenge it, the outcome will be the same.

I'd use this information to approach the restructure lead, and flag it as a concern. I would then have a conversation to say I'd be happy to leave quietly and take redundancy under a compromise agreement, which should get you more than statutory redundancy for 6 years. Ask for your notice to be paid but not worked.

I'd then take the money, and use this as an opportunity to look for a new and better suited to you job.

Also I suppose the sheer confusion of why team are all deemed to be suitable to work in that team but I'm not deemed suitable to head up the department.

Good advice from @Starseeking. Push them on it. While you may not keep your job it could get you a bigger payout.

@Culabula353 did you use a real name in your previous post?

Thanks for checking but no. That's a weird Autocorrect typo! Was supposed to say I started out on lowest level. No idea who Naomi is or ended up being in my post! Thankfully there are no actual Naomis involved

Thanks to everyone who gave advice earlier in the week. Much appreciated.

The plot thickens a bit. I asked HR for the assessment that meant my role wasn't match. Turns out they didn't do one. Because the other head was hired with the new job title and a job description that works for the new team she's effectively already in the job so there was no vacancy to be assessed against (any more than I would be against any other dept head who's not at risk).

So basically I've been shafted by my director writing a new job description for that other dept head (who was essentially hired to backfill the director when she was promoted) knowing that changes were coming. Instead of waiting to recruit, ring fencing the role for me or hiring her under the old job description and then allowing us to compete for the role in the restructure she cracked on and preemptively hired her for the new role. I'm livid.