HR advise please
Discussion
Apologies for a long and probably confusing post, but I quickly need some HR advice.
Consider this situation...
Person A is in job role A.
Over a year ago role A would be seen as a higher status than role B.
Over time due to changes in business needs role A's responsibilities deminish whilst role B's increases hence role A becomes equivialent role B. All that has effectively changed is job title. No change in status within the company or salary.
So we tell person A that role A = role B, so you will lose the title of role A and become B.
Person A is rightly miffed but accepts new role B.
Note, we did this with guidence from of HR dept, and Person A had a union rep present. So the process is all above board.
HOWEVER. Our HR department have now stated to Person A "as your original role is now effectively redundant, you can have a 4 week trial period, if you can give good reasons why this is not suitable then we can offer you a redundancy package".
This cannot be right surely?
TIA (apologies for the cr4p spelling in the title!)
>>> Edited by FunkyGibbon on Friday 30th January 12:38
Consider this situation...
Person A is in job role A.
Over a year ago role A would be seen as a higher status than role B.
Over time due to changes in business needs role A's responsibilities deminish whilst role B's increases hence role A becomes equivialent role B. All that has effectively changed is job title. No change in status within the company or salary.
So we tell person A that role A = role B, so you will lose the title of role A and become B.
Person A is rightly miffed but accepts new role B.
Note, we did this with guidence from of HR dept, and Person A had a union rep present. So the process is all above board.
HOWEVER. Our HR department have now stated to Person A "as your original role is now effectively redundant, you can have a 4 week trial period, if you can give good reasons why this is not suitable then we can offer you a redundancy package".
This cannot be right surely?
TIA (apologies for the cr4p spelling in the title!)
>>> Edited by FunkyGibbon on Friday 30th January 12:38
Seems like bull sh1t to me a 4 week trial period.
If role A is downgraded to role b but keeps payment for role A as he/she was in the higher position. then this is fine as you say. but the TRial period is cr4p.. The person has been doing the job for several months years then he she should be exempt from this..
Sound like your HR department is f**ked up..
my old company was like this, they were idiots...
steve
If role A is downgraded to role b but keeps payment for role A as he/she was in the higher position. then this is fine as you say. but the TRial period is cr4p.. The person has been doing the job for several months years then he she should be exempt from this..
Sound like your HR department is f**ked up..
my old company was like this, they were idiots...
steve
It sounds like they are taking the piss, I think (and I might be very wrong) that by not making a change to your contract you are probably in the eyes of the law still doing job A, unless of course you have no contract at all in which case I think the whole thing is probably breaching some law or other.
D.
D.
I may have got confused, but I would read the trial period as the employer giving person A four weeks to decide if they really want the new role or the alternative of redundancy, a decision made by person A and not the employer. If person A decides to stay it can be shown that their terms and conditions have been changed by mutual consent. If they decide to leave they have the option of a redundancy package.
Person A could try and claim thet they have been unfairly constructively dismissed as a result of a unilteral change in their terms and conditions of employment by the employer. I wouldn't go there - there has been a significant business realignment and needs of the business is a defence against such claims
I would propose that Person A decides if they want to stay - if they do, then stay, if not try to negotiate the best package possible and find somewhere else to work where their talents will be more valued!
Person A could try and claim thet they have been unfairly constructively dismissed as a result of a unilteral change in their terms and conditions of employment by the employer. I wouldn't go there - there has been a significant business realignment and needs of the business is a defence against such claims
I would propose that Person A decides if they want to stay - if they do, then stay, if not try to negotiate the best package possible and find somewhere else to work where their talents will be more valued!
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff