HR related question, consultation for redundancy
Discussion
Am I right in thinking that you make a position redundant rather than a person? Where I work there are 6 developers (EG) that were all put on consultation for redundancy (collective). This is to expire in a few days.
Out of the 6 developers 5 of them were offered new jobs (just a restructuring with new reporting lines) and one was informed that he was to be made redundant (he was not popular or the best at his job - apparently). However, one of the developers who was safe has now resigned as he was annoyed at what has happened. So this now leaves a position free. Are my company legally bound to offer this position to the 6th developer who was going to be made redundant? I’ve been gooleling employment law but I cannot track down an example of this…….
Out of the 6 developers 5 of them were offered new jobs (just a restructuring with new reporting lines) and one was informed that he was to be made redundant (he was not popular or the best at his job - apparently). However, one of the developers who was safe has now resigned as he was annoyed at what has happened. So this now leaves a position free. Are my company legally bound to offer this position to the 6th developer who was going to be made redundant? I’ve been gooleling employment law but I cannot track down an example of this…….
Looking at a couple of reference books they cannot make someone redundant if their job is still there, ie, the number of hours/people needed to complete the work have not decreased, and now there are 5 jobs and 5 people I can't see that they can continue with the redundancy.
Get the person concerned to speak to a union rep if they are a union member, or CAB for experienced advice.
Get the person concerned to speak to a union rep if they are a union member, or CAB for experienced advice.
he should be given the opp to apply for the role - if his skills don't match then he can still be made redundant.
key point is that the new role must be different to his old one in a way that you can prove. If he was selected initially due to his skills not matching the new roles this should be easier
key point is that the new role must be different to his old one in a way that you can prove. If he was selected initially due to his skills not matching the new roles this should be easier
Thanks for the replies. It will be interesting to see if he comes into the office on Monday when his consultation time runs out.
The trouble is, at this company the director seems to drop demands onto HR and leave it to them to work it around the law.
The trouble is, at this company the director seems to drop demands onto HR and leave it to them to work it around the law.
Edited by Tvrtastic7 on Thursday 25th September 17:58
I can't see a problem, the company restructed and made 6 jobs redundant, during the restructuring 5 new jobs were created, it was decided that of the 6 people being made redundant 5 were suitable to fill the new jobs created. The fact that one of these subsequently decided that he didn't want the new job doesn't mean that the remaining redundi (sp? or made up word?) is automatically going to be retained or offered the new role, I can't see that the company are even obliged to ask him to apply.
But then again I see everything from an employers POV and not a lawyers or employees, so don't listen to me.
But then again I see everything from an employers POV and not a lawyers or employees, so don't listen to me.
I was in a similar situation.
The employer will argue that the skills are not transferable, the person concerned will argue against.
Usually what will happen is that eventually, they will offer a no compromise agreement, if they are that desperate to get rid of the person. What this means is sign away rights to sue them, in exchange for a big fat cheque.
Otherwise, the person concerned should stall them as long as possible. They are suppossed to prove that the reason for redundancy is real and they should offer suitable alternatives, which are open within the company. If they don't follow the rules then it could be unfair redundancy and therefore unfair dismissal.
Comes down finally to what they are willing to offer in terms of redundancy package against what the person is entitled in terms of statutory entitlement.
I'm no lawyer, but this was my experience and what I researched (plenty of this stuff on the web).
Hope this helps.
The employer will argue that the skills are not transferable, the person concerned will argue against.
Usually what will happen is that eventually, they will offer a no compromise agreement, if they are that desperate to get rid of the person. What this means is sign away rights to sue them, in exchange for a big fat cheque.
Otherwise, the person concerned should stall them as long as possible. They are suppossed to prove that the reason for redundancy is real and they should offer suitable alternatives, which are open within the company. If they don't follow the rules then it could be unfair redundancy and therefore unfair dismissal.
Comes down finally to what they are willing to offer in terms of redundancy package against what the person is entitled in terms of statutory entitlement.
I'm no lawyer, but this was my experience and what I researched (plenty of this stuff on the web).
Hope this helps.
mel said:
I can't see a problem, the company restructed and made 6 jobs redundant, during the restructuring 5 new jobs were created, it was decided that of the 6 people being made redundant 5 were suitable to fill the new jobs created. The fact that one of these subsequently decided that he didn't want the new job doesn't mean that the remaining redundi (sp? or made up word?) is automatically going to be retained or offered the new role, I can't see that the company are even obliged to ask him to apply.
But then again I see everything from an employers POV and not a lawyers or employees, so don't listen to me.
But the job rolls and titles are exactly the same, just now reporting to a local manager rather than a central (national) manager. The company has used redundancy to remove a member of staff. I am pedantic and think that the correct methods should be used if they have issues with an individual and not using the redundancy card that has actually annoyed all the developers to the point that one has left and the others are looking.But then again I see everything from an employers POV and not a lawyers or employees, so don't listen to me.
Very interesting question this, one I'm keen to know the answer to. I would have thought that if the postion continues to exist then the person cannot be made reduntant however I stand corrected on that. I know of someone in a similar position but he is approaching 65 and they want to retire him. He wishes to work on and the company have a 70 year old doing the same job at one of their other locations. However the would-be incumbent to the freed-up position is the manager's father.
Rob Smith7 said:
If not then I see a few texts of advice being sent to him ;-)
Why would you do that? He hasn't got the job for a reason. Might not be pleasant, but the company you work for don't want him working there. I would think about the security of your own job before you start stirring it up...Why would you do that? He hasn't got the job for a reason. Might not be pleasant, but the company you work for don't want him working there. I would think about the security of your own job before you start stirring it up...
[/quote]
Honour over good sense I guess. There are correct ways to deal with poorly performing staff and removing them if must. It should not be done under the banner of redundancy.
To have a whole department under the shadow of rerundancy jut to remove one person is shameful and quite stupid. The good ones are now annoyed and surfing jobserve.com
Edited by Rob Smith7 on Thursday 25th September 16:20
Edited by Tvrtastic7 on Thursday 25th September 17:59
I think the company are playing a subtle game. The restructure will probably be their get out of jail free card as without that he'd have been safe.
I'm *fairly* sure if it's a legal requirement to find an alternative position for him rather than redundancy if there's one available and it certainly seems like the quitter is leaving just such a suitable alternative begging.
As you say, if the company just want rid of him they really ought to do it "properly" but they'd find this difficult if there's not actually any problems with his performance and it boils down to a personality clash.
I'm *fairly* sure if it's a legal requirement to find an alternative position for him rather than redundancy if there's one available and it certainly seems like the quitter is leaving just such a suitable alternative begging.
As you say, if the company just want rid of him they really ought to do it "properly" but they'd find this difficult if there's not actually any problems with his performance and it boils down to a personality clash.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff