upgraded with 30% more work or redundancy? Is this possible?

[Tista]

Current job has been regraded by hr ( they initiated it) as higher than current band. Not signed anything yet as been told the new upgraded role will be restructured to have 30% more work in a new unrelated area. That’s just not possible for anyone to do. have to “ slot in” or be made redundant. Is this actually allowed?! So many questions. ! Anyone else experienced similar ?

If they are offering the choice of redundancy, then that is possibly more than they have to do! It's a bit of a grey area, but if they are offering redundancy it sounds like they are saying that this is a new role and you can take it or leave it. But those are your only options yes - the role remaining unchanged isn't an option. I understand that you say the new role isn't possible for anyone to do, but there is no legal mileage in that statement. If a new role is close enough to the old role, they can actually just tell you that you are being slotted in and you pretty much have to like it or lump it, and there is very little you can then do except resign and try to claim constructive unfair dismissal, which isn't a route for the faint-hearted. I do appreciate that you are no doubt correct about the workload, but give some thought to how you would empirically prove that the job was impossible to do in a court of law when an employer is saying that is ridiculous and why would they create an impossible job.

Thanks - that makes it v clear. It’s all been very badly dealt with/ communicated. At end of tether with it so it’s a no from here! Not being bullied into more work / staff in an area that have no professional experience or qualifications in. Sounds like might have to hope the redundancy offer actually materialises. ! Thanks

If you want redundancy (and do remeber that there ought to be a process in which you are conisdered for other suitable employment - if there is any and that's what you want) and they don't offer it, come back. It's often relatively easy to change their minds because redundancy is always cheaper for them than the legal route!

Just one possible suggestion - you ought to be offered a trial at the new role if you want to argue for that - four weeks to see how it pans out. And still qualify for redundancy. It sounds like you aren't interested at all in that option, but people can change their minds when/if unemployment looms.

When it’s 30% more work - do they mean your actual workload, or workloads you’d be responsible for? I’ve recently been promoted and my new role has an additional area rolled in. But with this I’ve been allowed to promote two current members of the team and recruit for another staff member.

Take the upgraded role but do the quantity of work that is possible in the available time. If they increase your workload beyond what is reasonably feasible to achieve and you start getting in trouble for not achieving it then that would be constructive dismissal - but it might be that what they are trying to do is empower you to work smarter not harder and they believe you have the knowledge and experience to be able to invent new ways of working that can achieve more in the available time. Might this be possible?

@MarketValveForks Under any circumstances constructive unfair dismissal claims have next to no hope of winning. In the circumstances described here there is not a win to be had. There is, as I said earlier, no method of empirically proving what "too much work" looks like, so claiming that you had to resign (or were dismissed) because there was too much work to do is a non-starter. People are managed out with performance processes all the time, and provided the employer follows a reasonable performance process they are 99.9% certain of a perfect defence if a claim is made. They only have to show that they set targets or standards, gave an opportunity to improve, and that the targets / standards were not met. A tribunal will never adjudicate on it deciding what too much work looks like.

update just in case it helps anyone in future. Yes it’s at least 30% more areas of responsibility/ work on top of big area already. Think they do reckon it could be done as it’d be less hands on. They think ( in reality no chance as it’s min 4 other diverse services not connected- not more of same). They aren’t doing same with others in team on same grade ( they keep one area maybe 2). They have not offered or seem able to consider offer more staff underneath to free me up to do the other “ less hands on) stuff. My role is a fairly standard one you find across the country - looking at adverts in other places they have the core ( my existing) role as stand alone and approx £10 k more than my current/ new super huge role. Union now involved but that’s it for me, I’m out. Hoping for a happy redundancy which they probably regret offering.! It’s local authority btw - probably just what you expect ( sadly). Daft thing is it’s just a restructuring exercise not like there’s no need for my ( current) responsibilities. Oops! Thanks to all