Urgent advice unfair Redundancy process

[Lookingdownthebarrell]

Hi, I was notified of at risk status a few weeks ago and I have actively consulted. Last week it has come to light that:

1. the first rationale for redundancy of my role was not
   applied consistently in the department;

2. because of what I said they are reinstating my role but moving to overseas rationale being my type of role needs to be in home country of multinational org - this is not being applied consistency in my department either, let alone the rest of the firm and nothing has been said my company senior management about moving roles to home country and there are thousands of people in the country;

3. they reinstated my role and combined it with a new role and won’t give it to me but what to give it to someone else. That persons old job role was split in two very recently and one part of their role is what my role is being combined with - this part of their role would not exist if they applied the rationale 1 used to terminate my role. The other part of their role needs this persons leadership. This person is a level below me and the level of the new role is my level.

It seems to me they are not making accommodations to keep me. Company is not in financial distress. And the redundancy is not fairly applied.
Any lawyers / HR folks here who can help me?

How long have you worked there for?

Are they making anyone else redundant?

ACAS are great for advice about redundancy

Your post is quite confusing, all the not applied consistently. Are you saying there are multiple identical roles to yours?

they can absolutely change the job description and create a new role, as they are doing with yours, and they can yes have a pool of employees, even two and pick what they fit is best person for it.

so they’ve not reinstated your role, as it is merged with a different role it’s a new role.

the consistency you need to give more detail about.

being brutally honest I think I’d try to negotiate a larger settlement.

I’ve worked here for over 2 years.
Many others are being made redundant, I am the only one in my SLT.
Inconsistencies are: 1) the first rationale was not applied because that other role that split into two one part of it has the same attributes as the reason mine was being made redundant originally. 2) the second rationale is being applied inconsistently because there are five other roles in SLT that are similar to mine but people are located overseas. 3) unfair because the new role is 70% my old role and 30% from the split of the other role, no one’s yet been appointed to this 30% piece the other 70% of this split role still needs a person which realistically is the job of the person they want to give it to.

I am sorry if it’s not clear still I am trying to not be outing.

How do I go about negotiating a larger settlement? Do I need a lawyer? What is the settlement basis?

I was also going to ask them to delay deciding on my role so they can decide on the other 5 roles also impacted by location issue. If not a larger packet

If they are doing a group of redundancies then it's unlikely you'll be able to claim that you were made redundant unfairly.

They have to essentially demonstrate that there is a clear business need for what they are doing. It doesn't really matter if you agree with the rational of that business need. This is what they would be required to present at a tribunal if challenged and would probably win if they can do this coherently.

I always think the term consultation is misleading when used in the redundancy process because the business will have already decided why they need to do it and what they need to cut. At this point it's more about sorting out pools of those to be made redundant, which they will do behind closed doors.

As long as their selection criteria is fair and they can demonstrate a good paper trail as to why they made the decisions they did, they will likely have a strong case.

Contact ACAS and check they are following the procedure correctly, not whether you agree with their rationale. If they are you may find it very difficult to challenge.

Also, as much as people will say negotiate a higher settlement, whilst it's worth a try, they do not need to give you more than statutory redundancy, therefore you have to balance that possible outcome Vs what you would pay for legal representation.

I would put the main effort into finding a new job so you've got that problem sorted first, then look into how you want to handle the ending of this employment.

I agree their rationale is up to them, but I thought they need to apply rationale consistently across similar roles?

In my case, they’ve reversed decision because I showed them the first rationale was made on incorrect basis. Now it seems like they’re making it up when the second rationale is not being applied to hundreds of other roles and six in my SLT alone?

Do you have any of this in emails or is it through verbal discussion?

Sorry to say it does sound like they have specifically zero'd in on your role as a cost saving measure. What the reason for that is none of us can really know.

You really have to decide pragmatically where your best efforts should be focused now. They want you out, that is clear. So your choices are focus on getting a new job and/or chasing a settlement, which will cost you money in legal fees.

What is your current situation like, do you need employment asap? Can you afford to pay legal fees at this point in time?

You could speak to ACAS and see what their thoughts are. But from an objective perspective it looks like you will be leaving the company, so you need to plan accordingly regardless of the outcome.

I agree with you there, I already started looking for other jobs and connecting widely with my network. I need a job asap and if I have a job can afford a lawyer not without another job.

ACAS say that it could be unfair dismissal as they’re not offering me the role. Didn’t say much about inconsistently applied rationale, except that I can raise a grievance to find this out. I guess that may help with a potential settlement.

There seem to be a no win no fee law firms - any thoughts on those?

Ok, so

1. the first rationale was not applied because that other role that split into two one part of it has the same attributes as the reason mine was being made redundant originally.

this is fine, it is creating a new role, no consistency required, they can create new roles when they wish, if business need is to reduce head count, or business requires or wishes the new hybrid role.

2. the second rationale is being applied inconsistently because there are five other roles in SLT that are similar to mine but people are located overseas.

this is also fine, different countries have different employment laws, it just needs to be applied consistently in the uk. As such, if yours is the only uk role they are correct.

3. unfair because the new role is 70% my old role and 30% from the split of the other role, no one’s yet been appointed to this 30% piece the other 70% of this split role still needs a person which realistically is the job of the person they want to give it to

unfair isn’t really applicable here, they can create a new role as a hybrid of two and give it to the person they deem most appropriate to do the role. They will have to have selection criteria, but they can use softer skills in here which are subjective, you are not, I’m sorry, entitled to the role as you did 70 percent of it before.

Are you sure Acas said that? Did you explain correctly to them

it is in no way unfair dismissal as you’re not offered a new hybrid role. They need to go through the selection process from the pool and determine the right person, they then make any remaining staff redundant. Unfair dismissal would not apply here.

I was paraphrasing ACAS, there could be, so I am asking how they went about allocating the role to someone else.

UK Operations are huge many senior global people are here, including 3 in my SLT peers, prob 3 in my boss’ boss’ SLT etc

In a redundancy situation, what is unfair then, can you give a couple of examples.

The other person applied for my job and didn’t get it 4 years ago. Then 2 years later promoted to another role at my level but hasn’t got the grade upgrade. Whereas my appraisals have been expecting expectations in the years in this role.
I can feel a personal slap in the face.

I am embarrassed to be singled out like this. Hence my preference to keep the job instead of a larger payout

They do need to apply a selection criteria and be open about that.

it can be many things, from skills, to ability to progress, going the extra mile etc,

unfair would be no selection process, but even then they can go to single person redundancy if they simply say the role as it stands is no longer required.

they then need to consider you for other roles, with all other candidates, and again do the selection process.

neigher you or the other person are entitled to the role. They can make the role redundant and create a new role with some differing responsibilities, at 30 percent they have done this, and then select best for the positon

they can even keep it as is, no change, create a pool for the role, make other roles redundant, and then do selection process for the remaining role. And argue someone else is a better fit.

Thanks helps to know how things are supposed to work and the reality. I will fight for a stay of execution so to speak or show why I am suited for the other job.

I’ve had a few convos today and feel a little more informed on things. Waiting to connect with a couple of employment law folks.

Thank you for the advice

Good luck op, it’s shit when this happens, the advice I’d give is try to negotiate a bigger settlement,

Absolutely 👍 they’re fab I’d be speaking to them first thing tomrorow.
sorry you are going through this.

From my experience with the redundancy process (from the other side of the table), once consultation starts, the company has already made up their mind. They want you out. If you make it difficult for them and get lawyers involved, your payout will likely be higher. It is extremely unlikely that you will be able to keep the job

I’ve been in the pool for my own company and consultation started a few times and always been reallocated another role. However in this instance I also think it’s job done, she is going, so all she can do is negotiate a better settlement.

Yep. If they want you out, they’ll find a way to get you out. Get the biggest payout you can negotiate.

Oh love, this sounds like an absolute mess and honestly, it stinks. You're right to question it because none of this adds up. Rationale changing mid-process, inconsistent application across the department, your role being reinstated but given to someone else at a lower level? That's not redundancy, that's manoeuvring you out. Document everything with dates, who said what, and how the criteria have been applied differently to others. Get proper legal advice now, many employment solicitors offer free initial consultations, or contact ACAS for guidance. This could well be unfair dismissal territory and you need someone in your corner who knows the law inside out.

❤️
I am speaking to lawyers but I understand the tribunal payout for unfair dismissal is capped at max of amount so will be going for that max and see how it plays out.

It’s a weird situation that I can’t get my head around…my boss has been so open that my case is getting written and stronger every time we speak. I’ve made inquiries but can’t figure out who wants me out. I am a high performer and year ends and bonus including this year have been on an upward trend. I usually have an idea if someone may be pissed off with me but honestly am not able to figure it out.

Absolutely
Give them a call Monday morning x