Restrictions on applying for internal jobs

[GeekIsGood]

DH's organisation say that when he gets a new internal job there he is banned from applying for any other internal jobs for six months. Is this enforceable?

Also, they say that when staff are being made redundant having been there for less than 6 months, they can't apply for the posts that will be remaining after the redundancy selection process, because of this 'no applications before six months' rule. They are using a job application process as a method of redundancy selection, which I think is unfair anyway. And they are calling it recruitment!

And if they were able to apply for the remaining posts, and got them (these are fixed contract roles), they wouldn't be able to apply for any permanent jobs that came up within the following six months. This doesn't sound right to me either.

Any advice on this please? It would be much appreciated. We're seeing the CAB next week and he has just joined the union but I am impatient to know we're ok!

Sorry I meant 'these are fixed term contract roles'.

sounds odd to me - they are making people redundant who are on a 6 term contract. before their contract has ended.

then they tell those people becuase its a 6 month contract, they cannot apply for another 6 month contract - and keep a job, becuase of company rules?

i think you are right to seek advice

dont forget ACAS - they are worth a ring

Yes Custardo I think they must be talking major bolllocks. Getting the Rage hat ready and consulting ACAS, CAB and Unison.

My company has a policy that you can't move until you've been in post a year because that's how long they reckon it takes you to settle in and start performing well enough to prove yourself.

However, there are clear exlusions to the policy, such as in redundancy/redeployment situations, some personal situations (eg needing to relocate for a partner's job/needing to change role for health reasons etc) which need the approval of the HR business partner for the area (who would automatically be involved in redundancy situations)

Are you sure there hasn't been some misunderstanding along those lines?

Has your DH been put at risk?

Yes Manicmummy he has, though not in writing because they don't do that, and they have been saying for the last month that they're not sure if they can waive their rule in this situation!

There's no law directly against that sort of rule, although it's very odd.

At six months you don't have any unfair dismissal rights, so you have no actual right to internal vacancies anyway.

In terms of other stuff, you'd have to argue it under discrimination, such as having a greater effect on fixed term staff, women, etc.

Surely though Ribenaberry, if they are cutting posts and making people apply for the remaining ones as a method of redundancy selection they should not be applying this rule to stop the newer staff members who are affected taking part in the selection process? They say they can't lift the rule.

I thought when you were making people redundant you had to offer them other available work, not make them apply for it.

You do have to offer people alternative work if their job is redundant, but often in redundancy situations there are more people being made redundant than there are posts available, so a choice needs to be made. Asking people to apply for the vacancies so that the best person for the job can be chosen is a perfectly valid method of selection for redundancy.

It's not clear what situation your DH is actually in Geek, is he on a fixed term contract and has been there less than six months? If so, he won't have any right to claim unfair dismissal if he is made redundant anyway, unless there is some kind of discrimination involved.

The thing is Geek, if someone has been there less than a year, they don't have any dismissal rights. This means that they could just be called into the office and given notice. There's no right to alterntive jobs or to be offered other alternative work. What they are doing is unfair, but on what you've said so far, it's not illegal (unless you can argue some form of discrimination).

All the people up for redundancy are on fixed term contracts, that's why they were selected for possible redundancy. They plan just to 'not renew' some of the contracts. Some of them were recruited less than six months ago. I just think it's untrue that the company are unable to override their own rules in this unusual situation, which is not the kind of situation the rule was designed for.

Is this definitely company policy or perhaps a temporary personnel freeze?

The rule would also apply to someone who has been with the company for years but in this particular role for less than six months. Whenever you move jobs internally the six month rule kicks in.

It might well be untrue that they can't overrule their own internal rules, but you can't force them to do so. Unless there is discrimination involved, people with less than a year service are powerless to do anything about it when they are dismissed, regardless of whether it was unfair or not.

It's always been company policy to bar people from applying for other internal positions within six months of starting a new role, however long you have worked there. I just think they should waive it in redundancy situations but they have said that they can't. But they made the rule so surely they can break it!

Is it not discriminatory to select only those on fixed term contracts for redundancy and not the people on permanent contracts doing the same job in the same dept?

Possibly. Were they selected for redundancy because they were on fixed term contracts, or because they had been in that particular job less than 6 months, the rule that applies to everyone, fixed term or permanent?

Because of the fixed term contract. Some have been doing it for a couple of years, longer than many of those of perm contracts who are not being selected.

Selection because of fixed term status would be unfair, but you have to have the one year service to be able to claim unfair dismissal (which could be a number of shorter fixed term contracts back to back). It's not like sex discrimination, etc, which override the one year service requirement.

The rule would be illegal if it stopped those with more than a year's service getting redeployed, but isn't for those with less service than that.

Thanks everyone for your advice.