HELP - any legal bods out there? I am being made redundant............

[DrNortherner]

They are closing our office losing 32 jobs. we have entered into collective consultation.

They are restructuring and downsizing one particular team of which there are currently 14 people in. They are taking a smaller office 19 miles away, of which there will be 10 jobs available. These 10 are the same that 10 people in the team are currently doing. They are making us all redundant as they say this is fair so we all have the option to apply for one of these jobs. Surely the 10 people doing these jobs should not be redundant?

Thanks

I think we'd need a bit more information about the other office. What do you mean by "taking" another office? Are they buying another company or business? That could (possibly) make a difference. Are there people currently doing the same jobs in this other office - it doesn't sound like it from your post?

If it's just that they are moving the 10 jobs to another office already in the company then yes, I am afraid that that is a potential redundancy situation. A redundancy situation can apply when jobs are relocating, as well as when they are actually discontinued or the work is discontinued. Strictly speaking you should not have to apply for these other jobs - they should be offered to you if you are suitable for them. However, employers often use the language of 'apply' when they are talking about jobs that they are not sure people will want (as in the case where it would make the journey worse).

How much difference would 19 miles make to you - i.e. is it 19 miles but not much difference to commute because it's just a different direction from home, or does it actually add a lot of time to your journey?

In a redundancy situation if 10 people are already doing the 10 jobs that will be available it does not automatically follow that their jobs are automatically safe and only other people should be made redundant. So long as they are scrupulously fair in the process of selcecting the correct pools from which to pick staff, and fair in the process of selecting staff from those pools, then normally they are quite able to put everyone (ie all 14 of you) at risk if they wish to. There has been clear case law around this (Murray v foyle if you want to google it). It might potentially be unfair if you could clearly show that the skills of the 10 people are not easily transferable, but otherwise there is no automatic protection for the 10 incumbents.

OK thanks.

They are not buying another company no, they are proposing to move to a smaller office owned by our parent company.

19 miles does not sound much but potentially it can be a 45/50 minute journey!

So they are saying that all 14 jobs are going at your present location, but that there will be 10 new ones at the other offices and you all have the opportunity to be considered for those 10 new jobs?

Unfortunately, yes, that is fair as a principle. They need to do the rest of the consultation right, etc, but as an underlying principle it's fine. They could actually be criticised, given the relocation element, if they just slotted the 10 'most alike' jobs into the new location.

if they are closing the current jobs and moving them to another location this could be a redundancy.

If your contract says that you can be moved to another site then you might not be redundant. If you can't make it to the new office then you will be deemed to have resigned.

Otherwise, you should at least be able to discuss the jobs at the new site. But if you can't get there and reject a job it might boil down to whether you have unreasonably refused a suitable job.

If there is no relocation clause in your contract then they probably can throw the jobs open to all of you. Of course those who are already doing the jobs they want will be in the best position.

What do you want? The job or the redundancy payment?