Are you there flowerybeanbag? I need you please please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fadingaway]

Have been advised to post here:

Yesterday redundancies were made at my firm. The reason was the department in which I work (res sale and purchases) was suffering from the economic downturn. Fair enough. The only people selected for redundancy were us in that team, nobody from other teams in similar jobs selected. They decided to downsize by 19 members of staff. Handy eh, short consultation period. Part of the selction process involved consultation with team leaders (also fighting for their jobs) and as is the way it appears that their pets have managed to keep their jobs.

Were told would be offered suitable alternatives where possible. I've been offered post as a remortgage handler with a huge salary drop (and I mean huge). If I say no and leave there is no redundancy package as I have been there less than 2 years.

Someone has said this is constructive dismissal but I would have thought these sods I work for would have thought out every angle.

Any advice?

And also, If I take this job, which I really have to as there's no alternative, and then I find another, do I really have to give a month's notice? I woudl rather go in one day and say I'm leaving and go the next day.

Many thanks in anticipation.

fadingaway I wouldn't say this is constructive dismissal at all I'm afraid.

It sounds to me as though you have been selected for redundancy, but in your case there would be no pay other than notice pay because of your length of service. There is nothing wrong with them offering you something which is clearly not a suitable alternative - you don't have to take it.

If you had been there, say, 5 years, and would be entitled to a fair whack of redundancy, but they were saying you had to take this (clearly) unsuitable alternative instead, and would not be eligible for your redundancy pay if you refused, then that would be illegal.

But you're not entitled to anything anyway, so you're not losing anything, iyswim? They are not trying to get out of paying redundancy pay because there wouldn't be any. Either you take redundancy, which in your case would just be your notice - either working it or paid it depending on what they've said, or you take this alternative. They may not be anticipating you take it, but it makes no difference either way to them or you.

With regards to your notice, it would be very unreasonable of them not to let you go early if you find something else, but actually they wouldn't have to pay you your notice. They only need to give you notice. I would hope they would not make you work it, but they could. I'd be inclined to just ask them that, again you have nothing to lose.

I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear, but they aren't trying to deprive you of anything you are entitled to I'm afraid. You are cheap to make redundant. Not that that's a particularly valid selection criteria I have to say.

The other thing to consider is whether you have been fairly selected for redundancy. In terms of your selection for redundancy, what reason have you been given? It sounds as though there were a group of people going for fewer jobs. On what basis have those who have been selected for redundancy as opposed to getting the (suitable) jobs been chosen?

Have a look at ACAS about selection for redundancy and information you should be given.

Directgov quite comprehensive on redundancy as well, stuff about fair selection, alternatives, pay and rights looking for and finding something else externally.

I agree. It's not constructive dismissal. Employers are obliged to do everything they can to avoid redundancies, even if that means offering positions which are lower/unsuitable. It's just that you don't have to take the position and can take redundancy instead (as Flowery said, because of your length of service, this would just be notice period).

I am more interested in selection too. If there are some jobs in your area, what was the scoring process used to choose who would get them? Are they the same jobs as the existing team, but fewer places, or are the jobs different? The legal obligations on consultation are pretty strict if you are reducing, say 15 identical positions to 10, as you have to use objective selection criteria to work out which five people go. However, if you are doing away with all 15 jobs and creating 10 new different ones, it is slightly differnt. You still have to use objective criteria, but you're making everyone's position redundant and then finding some people alternatives, not just weeding out 5, if you see what I mean. In that sort of situation it would be common to use interviews or appraisals to decide who gets the 10 new jobs.

Re notice, as Flowery said, they don't have to pay it if you don't work it. BUT (except for the impact on references) it is hard for employers to do much about employees not working the notice period.

fadingaway you still about? How are you doing?

I'm back. Thanks for all this advice.

The jobs kept were identical and the people who've remained stay on their current salaries.

The selection process used scoring based on different aspects of the job. The panel consisted of partners in the firm who knew little if anything about it (I would guess they didn't even know who I was)and feedback from team managers was also taken into account.

One of the team managers was responsible for the various consultation meetings too. I fail to see how she can remain unbiaised when scoring her own team. I also fail to see how my team manger, who clearly had her favourites, could have been unbiaised. I found out today (as I left yesterday as soon as I had been told the outcome) that the staff who sat close to her, and in whom she regularly confided her problems etc. have all remained in post. The rest of us have all been shifted/made redundant. The problem of course is how to prove her scoring was unfair.

Maybe I am just a bitter old bag

And I have to agree - the ones that would have cost them the monst in terms of redundancy payments etc. have stayed.

It's LIFO dressed up, but there you go.

So you mean scoring based on skills/experience/performance in different aspects of the job in question? Feedback from team managers would obviously be crucial but doesn't mean it was impartial as you say.

You could consider appealing the decision? If it's about skills/experience/performance you obviously will have evidence about those things for you, appraisals, feedback, cv-type info about your experience. Might be difficult to prove your manager 'skewed' the scoring but if you appeal it it might force them to relook at it at least, and give you a chance to put your case? You're not losing an awful lot by doing this, just a question of whether you want to go through it or would rather cut your losses.

Thanks flowery. TBH I am already very tired of all this. I (and everyone else of course) have soent the last two weeks goinmg through endless permutations of how and why might be saved and whther that would be good/bad for us.

It's telling that virtually everyone had their desks cleared last Friday ready for the off, to save the scenes that would have been had we come back to our desks after The Meeting, but four people did not clear their desks and managed to carry on working all through the day, and every one of them kept their job. I cannot believe they did not know the situation before the rest of us I really can't.

The right of appeal is to the Chief Executive who frankly doesn't know me from Adam. Most of his time is spent away from the office on one corporate jolly or another.

My team leader keeps texting me to see how I am. Guilt is probably creeping in and I refuse to respond to her. I am no going to assuage her conscience!

Thanks again.

Maybe I shoudl shift over to employment

Someone who doesn't know you from Adam isn't necessarily a bad person to appeal to - more likely to be objective and raise an eyebrow if you present evidence of your fabulousness with regard to the selection criteria.

I have to admit to a weeny bit of sympathy for your team leader. It's a very difficult decision she's been part of and dealing with redundancies from the management point of view in terms of guilt, motivation of those left and all the issues that arise from such a difficult time is very challenging.

I know you feel she hasn't made the right objective decision and if she has skewed the selection in favour of people she likes rather than those best suited to the jobs available, that's obviously not acceptable at all, which is why I suggested you consider appealing (apart from anything it will get you a conversation with someone, an ear you can bend which you might find cathartic).

But if you can consider speaking to her at some point - probably face to face - to explain your disappointment and ask for her full support in giving you time off for job-hunting etc (her guilt might help you, make the most of it), I think that would be a good thing to do.

Don't know about employment - not being a lawyer I'm not up on the state of the market in that area, but exploring a change of direction might well be a good idea. It would give you some focus and motivation going forward, and you could yet find this decision is the making of you and your career! Obviously don't expect you to feel like that at the moment, now is the time for wallowing a bit in the unfairness of it all and the immediate problems it presents, but it does happen more frequently than you might imagine.

I'd be inclined to take some career advice from perhaps some recruitment consultants, and ask them to tell you where the gaps are and are likely to be moving forward, and think about changes of direction in those areas.