Any HR/Employment law experts here -restructure

[MooseAndSquirrelLoveFlannel]

Looking for some advice, as my dept has just been advised it's undergoing a restructure so our employment is at risk, but a few of us have a question over how it's being done..

So essentially there are 22 staff members with the same job title which for this post I'll call "Office Grunt" and we are a desk based, national service. Staff are dotted around the country but 9 are all in one office.

So, two new roles have been created..I'll call them "Office Slave 1" and "Office Slave 2".

We have been told the OS1 role will all be based in the above mentioned office, and the OS2 role is now field based.

All staff based in that office have been direct matched to the OS1 role, even though its brand new as its said the new role matches their current skills. (It doesn't, a bunch will need to be trained in a new job and many are new staff who have never done the kind of work the older staff have done)

The rest of the staff, not based in that office have to apply for and interview for the OS2 role, as they say its a new role with a different job description and new skills we may not meet. I have checked the job description and its almost identical to the Office Grunt job description. The only change appears to be going from desk based to field based, so doing our work face to face rather than over the phone and OS1 is also a new role!!

So we are all wondering if its legal for the OS1 role to be offered to some staff simply based on the fact they are in that office and the OS2 role has to go through recruitment? When all us Office Grunts have the same current job titles and responsibilities, it's literally just our job locations that is different at the moment. And, the OS1 role can be done from any office, as its all desk based.

Even staff local to the office above, but based in a smaller office a few miles away are told they can't be considered for OS1 as they would need to commute for an hour and that's not reasonable apparently.

We feel we all could be direct matched to OS1 and OS2 roles, there is enough for everyone and the OS2 roles are split between the offices the rest of us work in!

So, if that makes sense to anyone is it okay for some staff to be guaranteed jobs just by virtue of them being in that office, and everyone else having to apply for roles that could have been direct matched easily.

no HR expert but i believe that during a process its not just the job description but also the location etc that can be considered for direct matching as presumably your work location is specified in your contract....therefore although the OS1 and OS2 roles are the same JD they differ on location so all 22 of you are being considered in different 2 redeployment pools on for office based and one for field based...out of interest how many new vacancies are there for OS1 and OS2, if they together total 22 then presumably you'll all be mapped to one fo the new roles?

IANAL but I did work for a major UK insurer who enjoyed making employees reapply for their own jobs every 18 months. I don't think during a restructuring that an employer can decide whether to consider you for a job that you already have based on your commuting time if they've moved the site of employment. Your decision about a reasonable commute is exactly that - your decision. It's of no consequence to the employer as to how long you commute for, unless they're expecting on-call work which it doesn't sound like.

Can you contact ACAS or if you're in a Union you could speak to them? There are really stringent laws around redundancies and restructuring.

There are enough jobs for all 22 of us. But those not in the blessed office, but situated in other offices have been told we need to apply and are not guaranteed a job as it will be a "normal" recruitment process but the roles are ring fenced until after the consultation process.

Those in the blessed office have their new roles guaranteed for them purely based on their location, and not skill set. In theory we all have the same skills, but that isn't the case just due to those who have worked with the company longer, have acquired extra skills over the years..

And in the blessed office, half are "new" staff, most with less then 2 years and some less than 6 months.

Sounds like there are some bad eggs they want to get out

Yes, as a former union rep, it sounds like there are some people they want to get rid of. I would expect anyone without performance issues to be given a job after interview.

Anyone who isn't could challenge redundancy via tribunal on the basis that a suitable alternative was available.

I am the highest performing staff member (not blowing my trumpet, we all have access to the stats every week) so I'm hopeful I'll get a role.

I do suspect they want rid of some of the staff, because I've been told that the manager hates several members based in other offices so maybe saw their opportunity to get rid of the trouble makers (I know which staff members the boss hates, he told someone this who then told me) but I question the validity of some staff being direct matched roles and others needing to apply and interview.

I am the highest performing staff member (not blowing my trumpet, we all have access to the stats every week) so I'm hopeful I'll get a role.

I do suspect they want rid of some of the staff, because I've been told that the manager hates several members based in other offices so maybe saw their opportunity to get rid of the trouble makers (I know which staff members the boss hates, he told someone this who then told me) but I question the validity of some staff being direct matched roles and others needing to apply and interview.

I am the highest performing staff member (not blowing my trumpet, we all have access to the stats every week) so I'm hopeful I'll get a role.

I do suspect they want rid of some of the staff, because I've been told that the manager hates several members based in other offices so maybe saw their opportunity to get rid of the trouble makers (I know which staff members the boss hates, he told someone this who then told me) but I question the validity of some staff being direct matched roles and others needing to apply and interview.

Not sure why that posted 3 times

They say the new role isn't a suitable alternative, as its a brand new role with new skills. Which is why we have to go through recruitment for it.