Can someone please point me in the right direction for redundancy advice?

[thehouseofmirth]

I'm 39 weeks pregnant and a SAHM and DH has been told today his job is under threat of redundancy and so he is going through a period of consultation.

DH is taking it personally and is upset, I don't want to ask him too many questions so wonder where I can look to get info? Have looked on Berr and accas sites but info not very comprehensive. At ths stage I would most like to know what the process actually involves and (although I am sure in most cases it's all a foregone conclusion) what info/type of argument he ought to provide to fight his corner.

Process simply is 90 days 'consultation' if more than 100 people set to be laid off and 30 days if between 20 and 100 to be laid off.

There are no negotiation rights on the part of the repreeentatives so, if a company wants to they can treat it as a foregone conclusion and simply go through the motions of pretending that they haven;t made their minds up and are open to suggestion.

What can your DH do? TBH not a lot. The reps should try to get the firm to agree to try to avoid redundancies by any of the following:-
voluntary redundancies
redeployment eslewhere in company
reduced hours/overtime for all
job-shares & part time
reducing costs elsewhere (particularly contract workers, freezing other benefits)

Then the reps should seek to make sure the selection process is scrupulously fair - no discrimination, people all having equal chance to apply for jobs, the 'pool' for selection being fairly determined

Finally the reps should try to see if they can improve the compensation package - perhaps keep benefits running, pay for outplacement services etc.

BUT I emphasise that so long as the company goes through the correct legal hoops there is little that the employees can do other than hope they can prove themselves worthy of keeping their job (ie by being better at it than the person next to them)

are the emloyees beign represented by a union? That always helps.

Bear in mind that it could be just as stressful for your husband even if he ends up keeping his job - a lot of loyalty is lost and it is very demoralising and 'survivors' often suffer from depression as a result of these processes. The best thing you can do is make sure he stays as positive as possible so that he impresses his bosses, and support him as much as possible when he's at home.

Oh, and look after yourself too! Timing could not have been worse for you both.

Squiffy thank you so much for the info and your concern. Would you mind if I ask you a few more questions?

It's less than 100 staff so it's 30 days. Does that mean 30 days consultation and then assuming he is made redundant he would be made redundant a month from then (or given a months gardening leave?) and if so, does than mean that form the date notice is given he will get paid 1 month?s salary plus the redundancy pay?

There are only 3 in DH's dept. His immediate boss and a more junior member. It transpires today that his boss was told there would only be 2 positions available and (including his ? and he has been demoted) and he was allowed to decide whether he wanted to keep DH or the more junior member. DH has been told today that if he contests the decision then both he and the junior member will both have to apply for the remaining role.

DH has spent the last year fighting for recognition (in terms of job title, description and remuneration) of the fact his role had changed quite a lot since he was taken on but because of office politics and the complication of the fact his company became part of a bigger group he has been constantly fobbed off. As a result of this uncertainty he has taken on all sorts of projects that he has been asked to do, thinking that (a) that was what the business required and (b) that by being helpful it would help his case. He feels very let down and I am also wondering whether his boss made this decision to save his own skin as basically DH is actually more effective in many areas than he is and might be seen as a threat.

It?s all getting a bit personal and emotional and I think even if they change their minds DH wouldn?t want to stay but if anything is unfair about this then I don?t see why DH should roll over.

DH is not a member of a union and apparently the reps are rather ineffectual kinds of individuals?

Houseofmirth - to answer your questions (as far as I am aware):

YEs, 30 days' consultation then would be made reduandant / gardening leave / payment in lieu of notice
BUT the group of affected employees can collectively agree to shorten the consultation process, although this should not affect the date of dismissal, and yes, to your second question.

not sure about the position re your other paragraphs

I sympathise re the reps.. Was their election carried out fairly?

If he has been doing lots of extra work and is clearly better than the junior person he should definately NOT roll over. He might want to suggest to his boss that as there are three jobs going then surely HR will need to have all three of them in a pool and HR or senior mgmt should then make the choice of which 2 of the three get selected. That would be a reasonable approach for a company to take (they wouldn't have to do it this way of course, they could indeed tell your boss his job is safe and leave it for him to decide who he picks), it would be interesting to see how his boss reacts to that as a possibility.

In a way it is luckier that your husband is in such a small team, because that makes it far harder for the boss/company to prove that their decision has been made objectively; and if they select the junior person over the senior person just because they 'like him more' or something like that then your DH would potentially have grounds to clain unfair dismissal. Especially if your DH has good ratings, is highly regarded outside of the team etc. Your DH should be quite clear wiht his manager that he is very interested to know why the 3 of them aren't in a pool together, and shoudl ask his manager to explain clearly to him, in writing, what objective procedure is going to be used to decide who gets the jobs. He has a legal right to this information and if the manager cannot explain the process to either him (or the employee rep) then the manager is potentially in trouble.

I'd also add that the selection process is part of the process for consultation, so he should have been told already, really.

Good luck, and fingers crossed.

Thanks guys. The plot thickens as DH had an off the record chat with his immediate boss yesterday who denied all knowledge of having chosen anyone, which is contrary to what the HR woman said. Of course he could be lying but it doesn't sound like it.

I think it's probably the case that they think DH would not want the remaining role as presumably it is a junior postion to the one he currently has (though we have had no details of this yet).

Just to clarify, Squiffy are you saying that DH should be asking (especially as DH's boss has been demoted and DH could do the job) why his boss's job is not also in the "pot"?

Squiffy, I am a bit confused by you saying in your first paragraph that the company can tell DH's boss his job is safe and that he can pick who stays and then later what you say about DH having a legal right to be told the objective procedure used to decide who stays and goes. Is that assuming that thw company has already used an objective procedure to decide that his boss will stay?

llareggub sorry, have I misread what you typed or did you mean he should not have been told already?

On the upside we have found a few jobs that DH can apply for so are ploughing on with that too - baby due any day now so we need to get cracking while we still have time!

I meant that the selection process should be part of the consultation process, sorry if it wasn't clear. He should therefore be told what criteria will be used in the selection process.

So theoretically, they shouldn't have decided yet?

Latest development is that the new IT manager who has been brought in part-time from head office over DH's boss's head (and DH's boss demoted), told DH's boss that he thought DH's work could be absorbed by DH's boss and the junior and that they would "muddle through" some how. Although DH disagres as there are certain things only he can do I guess that's it then really, isn't it?

Oh, now you have some meat to work with.

This is what your DH should put in writing to HR and to his own employee representatvie (he does have an employee rep, I presume?):-

"I am concerned to understand the selection process that is currently being undertaken with regard to my department.

As you know, there are three staff at three different grades in my department, and I undestand that only 2 jobs will be available.

What objective process will you be using for deciding who is to be included in the selection pool for the roles available?
What objective process will you be using to decide who is selected for each role?
Why has X already been telling people that I am going to be made redundant? At what point was this decided? And on what grounds?"

Depending on what has been said, when, and whether there is any evidence, it is possible that the company may be guilty of unfair dismissal of your DH if indeed the decision has already been made and has not been made fairly and objectively. But it is a rough road to go down. Far better to frighten the company into doing the process properly than to get made redundant and then fight it.

For what it is worth - your DH's boss potentially also has grounds to sue the company, if indeed someone was brought in over him and he was demoted (unless your boss had been shown to not be doing his job properly) - depends how long ago this demotion happened.

By the way I am presuming in all of this that both DH and his boss have been in their jobs for a couple of years?

Thanks Squiffy. Yes DH been at company for almost 5 years and his boss longer.