Redundant but my role still exists?!

[Talktomyselfforhours]

Hello!
Not posted for a long time and hoping there are some HR / employment law people on here to help! I recall @Flowery was always super helpful in these matters so hoping they are still on here!

I've been told my job is at risk of redundancy. Basically they've said they need someone in a more senior role to carry out more strategic work which although they said I have been performing well in my role, said I can't perform at the new role.

We don't have job descriptions and my role has evolved in the last 2 years but I've been covering multiple aspects of work including some of these 'new' duties that they've documented, albeit not creating strategies or engaging with directors which they say is needed. I've worked in my field for over 15 years and we'll experienced, educated and aspirational to progress my career, so I don't know why they won't let me even apply for the new role at least. My role will continue in its entireity, just with additional responsibilities.

I suspect that the reason they are making me redundant is that I had to take a period of sickness leave at the end of last year, and suddenly within days of my return my role is at risk. I could be wrong but timing wise, and based on the fact I'm the only one in the team impacted by this so called restructure, it feels linked.

Any advice how to proceed with redundancy and / or appeal?

Your guess may be correct, but there is no point focusing on that. The only relevant issue is the redundancy and the process used for that.

You need to be clear on one thing - your role does not continue to exist if there are additional duties. The new role has additional responsibilities whic you do not currebtly perform, and that makes the new role diferent from your current role. If, as I suspect is the case, the new role is paid more than your current one for those responsibilities (and for a strategic role that engages with directors I would expect that to be the case) then the role is also not a suitable alternative role - the employer is not required to offer you the role or an interview for it, although if they advertise the role you can apply for it. You sugggest they have said you can't apply - have they said that directly? It is probably moot - technically nobody can prtevent someone from applying for a job, but if they don't want you in the role then you won't get it.

You say that you work in a team - are there other people in that team who do the same job as you? If there are, I would expect everyone in that position to be at risk, not just one person.

Sadly just sounds like a 'sham redundancy' and the leadership have cleverly already decided. Get your cv updated and out there asap.

no, your job doesn't exist. why say so?

they need someone who can strategise .a strategic role that engages with directors. they need someone who can perform that. you are not performing that.

The reason I say the role still exists is that the duties I perform still exist, they've just manufactured a new role which I mostly already carry out apart from the more strategic work. It doesn't seem like a genuine redundancy situation where the work no longer exists, or has been replaced with tech, or has moved location. Their argument that I don't do the strategic stuff is frustrating in that that would naturally be the next step in my career, but they're not even giving me a chance to progress into this. I've asked them why I can't do the role and they've just said I don't have this higher skill set. Ive not outright asked to interview for the role though.

I'd say the new role is 80% my current role and 20% extra which is why I'm questioning that my duties exist in their entireity, they've just added more responsibilities.
I'm the only one in team impacted, but another role which has some crossover with the aspects of the new role could have been considered as a new structure but I suspect they've formulated this approach to terminate me in response to my sickness absence. They've done it to others in the business before after they've been off sick, they're suddenly made redundant and then the role gets recreated into a new role but is basically the same. It's a pattern of behaviour in this company.

The reason I say the role still exists is that the duties I perform still exist, they've just manufactured a new role which I mostly already carry out apart from the more strategic work. It doesn't seem like a genuine redundancy situation where the work no longer exists, or has been replaced with tech, or has moved location.

Unfortunately you are not correct. A job is a collection of tasks. There is no reason at all for those tasks to disappear for it to be a redundancy. Sometimes the tasks are reallocated. Other times, like this, the tasks are added to, or taken away from, in such a substantial way that the job becomes a different job with different terms. That is what has happened here - the inclusion of new tasks which operate at a substantially higher level have changed the job. The job you have has therefore disappeared.

Their argument that I don't do the strategic stuff is frustrating in that that would naturally be the next step in my career, but they're not even giving me a chance to progress into this. I've asked them why I can't do the role and they've just said I don't have this higher skill set.

They don't have to give you the chance to progress into that role though. It is a very different role and they have told you why. I can't comment on your skill set, but I can say that if you do not currently work at that level this is not a suitable alternative role in law. You may be able to apply, but you neither have the right to an interview nor to the job. You have the right to be considered for any equivalent role, but not to progression.

They've done it to others in the business before after they've been off sick, they're suddenly made redundant and then the role gets recreated into a new role but is basically the same. It's a pattern of behaviour in this company.

Being neutral about this, because you have no proof of this claim, it might be argued that a period of sickness absence has actually highlighted the problems within an existing role. Sometimes it is only when someone is no longer there and people have to manage around it that they discover the shortcomings.

I fear they can justify it legally. It's amazing what legal loopholes big companies can find.

They might argue that the old job is obsolete, redundant, because their business needs have changed. They'll argue they now need someone with the higher strategic skills.

They might claim they've applied a 70:30 rule – an old role could be mapped to a new role if there was a difference of not more than 30% between the two roles. You say 80/20. They'll argue it's not, and the new higher strategic skills you don't have make it significant.

Will a tribunal uphold your claim? no full proper assessment done by employer? Even if you fight it could take years, and you'd be left wrung out.

You are hurting, because of the way they've treated you. Irrespective of what you decide legally, I still maintain you need to prepare mentally, definitely get your cv prepped and out there.

Negotiate the best terms for your redundancy offer, like paid time off for interviews and 6 month's pay in lieu of notice etc. See their offer and take it from there.. when satisfied take the money and run.

What is she negotiating with that is worth 6 months pay?

(zero legal skills here), agree, what can op claim for, monetary wise. Check this but first before you go any further op.

I think / is Unfair dismissal compensation - loss, only? Out of work for a year because of employer conduct, past losses rather than future losses, no allocation necessarily for stress.

But there is no evidence at all that the OP has a valid claim for anything. Based on what the OP has said this is a (legally) fair dismissal.