Redundancy with no consultation process

[Andy665]

Hopefully some clarity from the good people on here.

Wife has worked for a business for 4 years.

Last week they completely changed her role with no consultation, nothing in writing

She has objected to the change in role (she simply does not want to work in Customer Services) when her experience is as a PA and that was her role. She raised a grievance and stated that she is working under protest until the matter can be resolved

Today she has been issued with a letter stating that as her current role is now redundant and that there are no other positions available then she is being made redundant with statutory redundancy pay at end of 2023 - no consultation process

Do they have a case to answer - to my simple mind it seems very heavy handed. Wife does not really want to stay there but is very principled and feels that she has been treated quite unfairly

Edited by Andy665 on Tuesday 24th October 16:07

[vaud]

A low cost call to ACAS would be a good start.

[StevieBee]

Andy665 said:

Do they have a case to answer - to my simple mind it seems very heavy handed. Wife does not really want to stay there but is very principled and feels that she has been treated quite unfairly

Unless your wife is one of 19 or more in the same boat, unfortunately not.

If the number of people being made redundant is less than 19, the company is only legally obliged to explain why the redundancy is being made and what the alternatives to redundancy are. Both appear to have been done.

There is no legal requirement for them to consult the employee. If the alternatives are unacceptable to the employee then redundancy pay must be made - statutory minimum plus anything else covered in the service agreement / employment contract.

What they can't do is make the 'role' redundant, your Wife leave, then reinstate the role appointing someone else without offering it to your wide first within (IIRC) two years from the initial redundancy.

If there are 19 or more, then Collective Redundancy Rules apply which does require consultation done via an informal group or trade union. Such consultation looks at ways to avoid or reduce redundancy and how to limit the impact on employees via retraining for alternative roles.

If she no longer wishes to work there, I would suggest she bites her tongue, take what's on offer and move on. Enacting her feelings, as understandable as they are, may well impact any reference a future employee may seek.

[Ham_and_Jam]

Whilst there is no formal process to follow for redundancy for less than 20 employees, consultation is still recommended with individual employees.

https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/redundancy-cons...

[Andy665]

Bit of an update.



Wife spoke to ACAS this morning who stated that she does appear to have a case of Constructive Dismissal that she could pursue - but advised its long and tiring. When she advised that she does not want to stay anyway but would like to negotiate a settlement that takes into account the potential "wrongdoing" they advised that she should accept the offer made without prejudice and advise that she is going to pursue an action against them, hoping that this will prompt the business to "pay her off"

As it stands she has been told that she will work until end of November as normal

Dec will be paid garden leave

Then 6 weeks redundancy pay

Apparently if she accepts this "without prejudice" they cannot withdraw the offer - worst case scenario she gets the above, best case is that they panic and improve the offer. My wife is being quite reasonable, its not about the money, its the principle of the way in she has been treated that has got her angry about this.

Before she could accept the offer she received an email from the HR Director -

"Can we can talk through any areas of concern, consider any alternative options if you have had a change of heart? Let me know if you want me to pop up."

That to me reads like she has realised or been advised that they have screwed up and is starting to backtrack a little



Wife has advised that she is busy today preparing a "handover of duties" schedule and she will go and see her tomorrow

[davek_964]

Andy665 said:

Before she could accept the offer she received an email from the HR Director -

"Can we can talk through any areas of concern, consider any alternative options if you have had a change of heart? Let me know if you want me to pop up."

That to me reads like she has realised or been advised that they have screwed up and is starting to backtrack a little

It's not how I read it. Obviously we don't know, but from your posts my interpretation of this would be :

PA role is disappearing (for whatever reason) - and the company puts her in a different position.
Your wife says : I don't want this role!
Company says : OK - then I guess we have to let her go.

The director email reads to me that the change of heart would be "Actually, the role you gave me is better than no role".

It does seem a bit odd if her role was suddenly changed without any discussion - but if it really did become redundant, it kind of sounds like they tried to give her other work - she said : No - and hence redundancy.

[jonsp]

Andy665 said:

her experience is as a PA

Presumably she's a PA to one or more senior people in the organisation.

Are they seriously claiming this role is redundant - ie the person(s) she's PA to no longer needs a PA? Unless the company is going through hard times (can't afford a PA) this seems unlikely.

[Countdown]

jonsp said:

Andy665 said:

her experience is as a PA

Presumably she's a PA to one or more senior people in the organisation.

Are they seriously claiming this role is redundant - ie the person(s) she's PA to no longer needs a PA? Unless the company is going through hard times (can't afford a PA) this seems unlikely.

They could be streamlining where, rather than each Director having their own dedicated PA, they have a shared pool of PAs instead. This happened at my previous workplace - my boss was retiring so they made his PA redundant. The new guy who came in was happy to use the pool PA as he'd never had the perk of having his own.

[vaud]

Andy665 said:

, its not about the money, its the principle of the way in she has been treated that has got her angry about this.

FYI for a settlement agreement they should be paying for your lawyer to go through the details. Won't be too expensive but at least you then have indemnified advice.

[Andy665]

jonsp said:

resumably she's a PA to one or more senior people in the organisation.

Are they seriously claiming this role is redundant - ie the person(s) she's PA to no longer needs a PA? Unless the company is going through hard times (can't afford a PA) this seems unlikely.

Only one Director has a PA - the MD

Current MD on sick leave (cancer) but is likely to return. Wife been PA to that person for nearly 5 years with good working relationship.

"Acting" MD has stated that he has never had a PA and is self-sufficient

davek_964 said:

It's not how I read it.

The director email reads to me that the change of heart would be "Actually, the role you gave me is better than no role".

That's it though, wife has not had a change of heart, she has zero interest in the role they told her she would be moving to - she would rather take redundancy.

She has said nothing that could be seen as her having a change of heart

Edited by Andy665 on Wednesday 25th October 14:15

[andburg]

Countdown said:

jonsp said:

Andy665 said:

her experience is as a PA

Presumably she's a PA to one or more senior people in the organisation.

Are they seriously claiming this role is redundant - ie the person(s) she's PA to no longer needs a PA? Unless the company is going through hard times (can't afford a PA) this seems unlikely.

They could be streamlining where, rather than each Director having their own dedicated PA, they have a shared pool of PAs instead. This happened at my previous workplace - my boss was retiring so they made his PA redundant. The new guy who came in was happy to use the pool PA as he'd never had the perk of having his own.

In which case if a shared pool was being created I believe all PA's should treated equally. All would have to be put at risk and due process followed to select those who will be part of the PA Pool with the unsuccessful candidates made redundant.

If the person or people OP'd wife reports to are leaving the business and not being replaced then it would make sense that her role is then made redundant

edit: as above if the MD is LTS but expected to return would it not make sense for wife to take the alternate position on an secondment basis until his return? by making his PA redundant they are essentially limiting him when he comes back.

Edited by andburg on Wednesday 25th October 14:26

second edit: stepfather-inlaw had to make his PA redundant a few years back as the company got rid.....a lot of these are very close relationships and the current MD may not be happy if this is happening potentially without his or her knowledge

Edited by andburg on Wednesday 25th October 14:29

Edited by andburg on Wednesday 25th October 14:30

[Andy665]

andburg said:

as above if the MD is LTS but expected to return would it not make sense for wife to take the alternate position on an secondment basis until his return? by making his PA redundant they are essentially limiting him when he comes back.

Thats pretty what she had been doing.

As the only PA in the business, no other secretarial function, about 60% of her time was spent supporting the MD, the other 40% supporting other directors, organising hospitality / corporate events etc.

When the MD went on LTS there was clearly a productivity gap to be filled, she was spending 1-2 hours per day helping cover reception (a receptionist had left and not replaced) and 2 hours per day in Customer Services on the understanding that when the MD returned then her role would revert.

Last Wednesday she was told that she now reported to the Marketing Director and her role was 80% Customer Services, 20% ad hoc "admin support"

I do wonder if the MD on LTS has heard about this and stepped in as she will be returning after many months away and will almost certainly want / need PA support that will no longer be there and presumably provided by someone that she knows and trusts - who knows?

Edited by Andy665 on Wednesday 25th October 15:17

[It's fixable...]

A bit late to this thread, but I was surprised to see that your wife is required to do a handover even though her role is supposedly redundant.

In my head why would she need to handover to someone else if no one else is going to be doing the role IYSWIM

Especially as she has been made redundant as a PA because her new boss is self sufficient and has no use for a PA, so why does he need a handover ?

[jonsp]

Well we'd have to assume the acting MD fancies himself for the job long term and is hoping the past MD doesn't recover/come back. Compassion aside that's not unreasonable, we'd probably all try to position ourselves for the role in his shoes.

So the current MD is out of the loop now and had no input in to this decision. At some point the company will have to consider dismissal on grounds of inability to do the job on health grounds. Especially considering the salary will be significant. If/when it's decided the acting guy has the job he may well want his own PA, so the job of PA to the MD is no longer redundant. Maybe in 6 months time, or whenever, he will hire somebody externally/appoint somebody internally.

But surely the company could then argue the job was redundant at the time she was made redundant - the company could say we couldn't predict the future?