Another redundancy type question
Discussion
Redundancies made 2 months and one week ago due to company struggling financially.
Imagine team of 3 within company. 1 person was made redundant from that team.
Let’s say recently redundant persons role was job title. Other person was junior same job title.
However, junior has just been promoted, so now has same tittle as the redundant role did.
But… Since the promotion announcement the company has had no change in financial situation since, no big influx of new business AND redundant person was only informed 2 months and 1 week ago. They left the company 2 months ago.
Is this legal?
Imagine team of 3 within company. 1 person was made redundant from that team.
Let’s say recently redundant persons role was job title. Other person was junior same job title.
However, junior has just been promoted, so now has same tittle as the redundant role did.
But… Since the promotion announcement the company has had no change in financial situation since, no big influx of new business AND redundant person was only informed 2 months and 1 week ago. They left the company 2 months ago.
Is this legal?
Did they make the original person redundant by way of saying thier position was no longer going to exist, or did they offer them the opportunity for a redundancy with associated payment which they took.
If it's the former, that certainly could be problematic. If the latter, then no, they've still made an efficiency in the wage bill, and unless you're privy to the newly promoted persons wage agreement, you have no way of knowing if they're now on the same as the previous incumbent. My bet is they're not.
If it's the former, that certainly could be problematic. If the latter, then no, they've still made an efficiency in the wage bill, and unless you're privy to the newly promoted persons wage agreement, you have no way of knowing if they're now on the same as the previous incumbent. My bet is they're not.
Are the two roles broadly speaking the same? Are there material differences in their duties?
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
deckster said:
Are the two roles broadly speaking the same? Are there material differences in their duties?
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
Can't really agree with that - redundancy means that role is not required. Not that someone is too costly in that role, which should have been consulted on.If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
deckster said:
Are the two roles broadly speaking the same? Are there material differences in their duties?
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
Thanks, also not sure agree with that either. Anyhow, yes same job title and same core expectations. Also it’s only been 2months since redundancy, so this seems like a noteworthy thing to me.If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
Hammersia said:
deckster said:
Are the two roles broadly speaking the same? Are there material differences in their duties?
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
Can't really agree with that - redundancy means that role is not required. Not that someone is too costly in that role, which should have been consulted on.If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
What is key is that the two roles are indeed equivalent. If they are then there is no issue.
deckster said:
Hammersia said:
deckster said:
Are the two roles broadly speaking the same? Are there material differences in their duties?
If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
Can't really agree with that - redundancy means that role is not required. Not that someone is too costly in that role, which should have been consulted on.If they are both the same role but just a different grade, but they are substantially doing the same job, then I don't see that there is a case to be had here as the redundancy process will have identified that there was no need for two of the same roles.
If they had brought in another person to fill the more senior role then clearly that's an issue. But I can't see a problem with promoting the one person left in the role.
What is key is that the two roles are indeed equivalent. If they are then there is no issue.
the thread appears to be talking around the edges here.
It's a clear cut situation of making the person and not the role redundant. We all know that is what has happened here. Proving it however is difficult.
I suspect the redundant person, was expensive, provided no more output than his junior and therefore the accountants and HR decided that he/she needed to be moved on. If they paid them off then fair enough I guess. However the fact that the role is not redundant would show it was the person they wanted shot of.
Usual HR skullduggery, if you can be bothered to fight it then crack on. Otherwise move on.
It's a clear cut situation of making the person and not the role redundant. We all know that is what has happened here. Proving it however is difficult.
I suspect the redundant person, was expensive, provided no more output than his junior and therefore the accountants and HR decided that he/she needed to be moved on. If they paid them off then fair enough I guess. However the fact that the role is not redundant would show it was the person they wanted shot of.
Usual HR skullduggery, if you can be bothered to fight it then crack on. Otherwise move on.
Hammersia said:
The job title, roles and responsibilities, matters not - it is ability, experience, knowledge that should be scored in a consultation. I don't believe a junior role is going to have the equivalent abilities of the more senior person, otherwise they wouldn't have been in a junior position.
The job title (to an extent), the role and the responsibilities are 100% relevant. If it is identified that there are currently two people in any given role, and that there only needs to be one, then one of those roles is redundant and one of those people is going to lose their job.The criteria for choosing which of those people it will be is largely up to company and only needs to be transparent, fair, and equitable (and obviously not based on any protected characteristic). If the company decides that the role doesn't require the additional ability, experience and knowledge of the more expensive person then that is their prerogative.
To put it in very simple terms. Let's say two people are doing the same job, producing widgets. One of them is on ten pounds an hour and produces 5 widgets in that time. Another person is on 15 pounds an hour and produces ten widgets. If they only need 5 widgets per hour, they could quite easily say that actually the more productive person is too expensive and their additional output is unnecessary.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
the thread appears to be talking around the edges here.
It's a clear cut situation of making the person and not the role redundant. We all know that is what has happened here. Proving it however is difficult.
I suspect the redundant person, was expensive, provided no more output than his junior and therefore the accountants and HR decided that he/she needed to be moved on. If they paid them off then fair enough I guess. However the fact that the role is not redundant would show it was the person they wanted shot of.
Usual HR skullduggery, if you can be bothered to fight it then crack on. Otherwise move on.
Thank you, you are clearly skilled on this subject because I think that’s spot on. Yep just a matter of effort for the redundant person as you say. It's a clear cut situation of making the person and not the role redundant. We all know that is what has happened here. Proving it however is difficult.
I suspect the redundant person, was expensive, provided no more output than his junior and therefore the accountants and HR decided that he/she needed to be moved on. If they paid them off then fair enough I guess. However the fact that the role is not redundant would show it was the person they wanted shot of.
Usual HR skullduggery, if you can be bothered to fight it then crack on. Otherwise move on.
cluckcluck said:
Let’s say recently redundant persons role was job title. Other person was junior same job title.
However, junior has just been promoted, so now has same tittle as the redundant role did.
If Person A's job title was "Accountant" and Person B's job title was "Junior Accountant" then if A gets made redundant you may as well call B "Accountant" rather than "Junior Accountant" IYSWIM.However, junior has just been promoted, so now has same tittle as the redundant role did.
If A and B were doing exactly the same job but A was getting paid more it makes sense to get rid of A.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
the thread appears to be talking around the edges here.
Not really, just not jumping to conclusions is all. It could well be the company is run by awful people who hated the deposed person, or it could be that the person in question has been found to be a rapist. We just don't know. So we talk about the known facts rather than drawing suppositions and engaging in speculation.Vsix and Vtec said:
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
the thread appears to be talking around the edges here.
Not really, just not jumping to conclusions is all. It could well be the company is run by awful people who hated the deposed person, or it could be that the person in question has been found to be a rapist. We just don't know. So we talk about the known facts rather than drawing suppositions and engaging in speculation.I agree with regard to not knowing the full facts, though.
OP, what process was followed during the 'consultations'?
Did they discuss at all what was going to happen with the roles post-redundancy?
For example, "We don't need 2 accountants so we're going to just have 1", or "we don't need a senior accountant anymore, just a junior"? That sort of thing?
Vsix and Vtec said:
Not really, just not jumping to conclusions is all. It could well be the company is run by awful people who hated the deposed person, or it could be that the person in question has been found to be a rapist. We just don't know. So we talk about the known facts rather than drawing suppositions and engaging in speculation.
you must be one of those people who believe that redundancies are fairly decided using empirical evidence and performance appraisals. Where as I think redundancies ( of the rank and file) are pre determined as to who is going, and the process is designed to fit.If you are senior management then it'll be agreed amicably and you'll get a nice pay off or boost to your pension pot.
If we started calling it out for what it is - a biased, somewhat vindictive, hard nosed and largely unfair dismissal, maybe businesses would go about it fairly.
Pulling a name out of a hat would be my choice.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
you must be one of those people who believe that redundancies are fairly decided using empirical evidence and performance appraisals. Where as I think redundancies ( of the rank and file) are pre determined as to who is going, and the process is designed to fit.
If you are senior management then it'll be agreed amicably and you'll get a nice pay off or boost to your pension pot.
If we started calling it out for what it is - a biased, somewhat vindictive, hard nosed and largely unfair dismissal, maybe businesses would go about it fairly.
Pulling a name out of a hat would be my choice.
A little bit of devil's advocate....If you are senior management then it'll be agreed amicably and you'll get a nice pay off or boost to your pension pot.
If we started calling it out for what it is - a biased, somewhat vindictive, hard nosed and largely unfair dismissal, maybe businesses would go about it fairly.
Pulling a name out of a hat would be my choice.
As a PBPHD I want the best person possible to be working for my business and earning me six figs. Surely I should be allowed to employ/make redundant whoever I want?
Countdown said:
A little bit of devil's advocate....
As a PBPHD I want the best person possible to be working for my business and earning me six figs. Surely I should be allowed to employ/make redundant whoever I want?
do what you want, but play fair and be transparent. If someone's face doesn't fit anymore, give them the car park chat and a fist full of dollars and send them on their way.As a PBPHD I want the best person possible to be working for my business and earning me six figs. Surely I should be allowed to employ/make redundant whoever I want?
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
do what you want, but play fair and be transparent. If someone's face doesn't fit anymore, give them the car park chat and a fist full of dollars and send them on their way.
Sure- but they're entitled to turn down/negotiate such an offer. Presumably a semi-intelligent person would negotiate that in full knowledge they can't be made redundant. My understanding of redundancy is you make a job redundant you don't make a person redundant.
Let's say the guy on the OP's post made redundant was Head of Paper Clip Procurement. His role was made redundant - the company no longer needs a Head of Paper Clip Procurement.
His underling was Deputy Head of Paper Clip Procurement. Then he's promoted to Head of Paper Clip Procurement. So the role was not made redundant.
Thanks all
The role was made redundant.
We had, for example, 2 accountants and a junior accountant.
They made one accountant redundant purely because company is making financial savings by making that role redundant. It was posted as such, a financial saving in tough times.
Person made redundant was doing their job well, had no pip, no issues. But as noted by some, was in significantly more salary.
Only 2 months later junior accountant promoted to accountant. I.e. the very role that was made redundant!
In that time, no extra money has come into the company to warrant this.
The role was made redundant.
We had, for example, 2 accountants and a junior accountant.
They made one accountant redundant purely because company is making financial savings by making that role redundant. It was posted as such, a financial saving in tough times.
Person made redundant was doing their job well, had no pip, no issues. But as noted by some, was in significantly more salary.
Only 2 months later junior accountant promoted to accountant. I.e. the very role that was made redundant!
In that time, no extra money has come into the company to warrant this.
It would appear outwardly and “interesting” move by the company to promote into the redundant role so soon.
Nonetheless, it all depends on what was actually agreed with departing person. Was it even a redundant agreement they signed, or just a compromise agreement or somesuch?
If they’ve taken as redundancy and been offered over stat min/contractural, I’d take and run. If payment was minimum, for amusement it’s tempting to write a letter from an employment lawyer to see how they respond, see if you can bump payment up to shut up….. But only if confrontation doesn’t cause stress, which for most people it does, in which case move on!
Nonetheless, it all depends on what was actually agreed with departing person. Was it even a redundant agreement they signed, or just a compromise agreement or somesuch?
If they’ve taken as redundancy and been offered over stat min/contractural, I’d take and run. If payment was minimum, for amusement it’s tempting to write a letter from an employment lawyer to see how they respond, see if you can bump payment up to shut up….. But only if confrontation doesn’t cause stress, which for most people it does, in which case move on!
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff