Very strange redundancy / constructive dismissal proceedings

Badger_Lady

I seem to have found myself in the middle of a right polava at work! Can any geniuses or experienced ex-employees comment on this?

Last month, there was a shock announcement that they were restructuring our department. Everyone in my team was "displaced" and we were all invited to apply for 3 vacancies in the business, which included the new team structure. The directors would then attempt to redeploy us all through "role-matching".

Now, the new team structure didn't include anything like my old job - my responsibilities were being moved out into other areas, so I applied for those other areas. It was all done very quickly and I work out of the office a lot, so I tried to chase up and find out whether I could do interviews etc, but the HR manager just told me to "relax and forget about it".

Anyway, when it came to role-matching day, they still hadn't had feedback from those areas and I still hadn't been asked to any interviews. The Director responsible for my team matched up a load of jobs and still had a vacancy left over, so he put me in it instead of making me redundant.

The job he put me in is a complete diversion from anything I've done before - it's a very specific discipline in which I have no experience, none of the specific skills and absolutely no interest. I was shocked to be "matched" into it, as was my manager (who was also displaced but was "matched" into being our manager again).

So I called for meetings to discuss - the above was all established, the Director kept saying "but you're capable of developing into it" and I kept saying "but it needs a lot of development that I don't want to do and shouldn't be forced to do". According to HR policy, if the job needs development and doesn't use my current skills I can choose to turn it down and take redundancy instead. I need to submit a formal appeal on Friday.

However, they're trying to sort this out with "informal routes", particularly bearing in mind that the new structure starts 1st January! They don't want to make me redundant because it could "open the floodgates" to other disgruntled employees who'd rather leave. But they know I know that if I am "considered to have resigned" because I don't accept the new job, I have a very good case for constructive dismissal... as a large, well-known employer, that wouldn't be good.

There's now a suggestion that they might pay me to resign! The equivalent of a redundancy payout but without the extended notice, CV writing and Jobseekers entitlemenet of a redundant person.

As far as I'm concerned, this is their own fault for communicating to everyone that I was going in this job, even though I told them from the offset that I wouldn't! So a straightforward situation has got out of control.

Has anyone seen this before??

pinkshoes

I think it would be redundancy rather than constructive dismissal, as your role no longer exists, and the only other role is not suitable.

I have seen something similar where a department was sold off (thus making the 7 employees redundant as their jobs no longer existed), and they had the choice to go and work for the new company who bought their department (in a location 50 miles away!), be redeployed into other vacant positions around the company, or be made redundant. Those that couldn't find a job suited to them were made redundant.

Badger_Lady

pinkshoes wrote: »

I think it would be redundancy rather than constructive dismissal, as your role no longer exists, and the only other role is not suitable.

This is what I would expect too, but they're not offering me redundancy. They've said that if I don't do the new job I'll be "deemed to have resigned". They've also confirmed there's no chance of any payout at all.

SomeBozo

I can't see how the employer had acted in any way that could mean "constructive dismissal".

Employers are allowed to make re-structures and move people around the orginisation. They can, for example put a pot of people "at risk" and then create a new structure and ask staff to apply for these jobs. This is not redundancy.

I would have thought a job you don't patucularly like is better than no job and gives you the chanve to look around for another?

Bozo

grey_lady

You should get some professional legal advice ideally, or even start with the cab. If your role is made redundant you dont have to accept a different role if you dont want to, do have to give you a redundancy payout in line with employment law.

If you submit your appeal and tell them your seeking independant legal advice they may change their minds quite quickly about not giving you redundancy.
Get / keep everything in writing, e.g emails not face to face chats.

However jobs are pretty hard to come by right now...

SomeBozo

If your role is made redundent you dont have to accept a different role if you dont want to, do have to give you a redundancy payout in line with employemnt law.

This is wrong.

Bozo

Badger_Lady

SomeBozo wrote: »

Employers are allowed to make re-structures and move people around the orginisation. They can, for example put a pot of people "at risk" and then create a new structure and ask staff to apply for these jobs. This is not redundancy.

Yes, they did ask me to apply for them - I applied for three jobs that I could have been suitable for. But they didn't give me any of those jobs, they lumped me into something I don't know how to do, won't be any good at, am not interested in and is a slight demotion.

As for "any job is better than nothing", no - I'm very self-sufficient at the moment; my lodgers pay for all my living expenses, I have no dependents and I could take my time to find the right job. I am even getting a good deal of interest from other companies. Surely that's my choice to make?

asea

Badger Lady - give ACAS a call, they can tell you what's what! Good luck

grey_lady

'
Quote:
If your role is made redundent you dont have to accept a different role if you dont want to, do have to give you a redundancy payout in line with employemnt law.
This is wrong.

Bozo'

Ok - its a bit more complex than that, (based on if the new role is suitable or not) if your employer believes that the new job is suitable for you than they may not have to give you redundancy and argue that your in effect resigning.

But if the op disagrees and believes it's not a suitable replacement job then the op may turn it down (or give it a trial) and then go to a tribunal for redundancy rights if the employer still disagrees.

In practise many employers would want to avoid a tribunal, hence i think there is a good chance the employer might change their mind about the redundancy if the OP argues in their appeal that the replacement job isnt suitable for them.

TUC http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/my_employer_has_offered_me_an_alternative

Badger_Lady

Thanks grey_lady

That's the lines I've been trying to follow - if they can't resolve it informally, I'll be writing a formal appeal tomorrow. Thing is, I've heard "through the grapevine" that they've already decided they won't consider the appeal because it would "open the floodgates" for other people.

They're arguing that they've matched me to the job based on "competencies", i.e. "can you manage your own workload?" and "are you good at working in a team?". By those principles, they could argue that a suitable job for me was an accountant, a nurse or a shop manager - doesn't mean I'd be skilled or experienced in that job. When you look at the specific responsibilities, there's nothing there I've ever done before!

It seems like a very grey area to establish what a "suitable alternative role" really is.

I've been to employment tribunal before (many years ago when my partner was unfairly dismissed) so I know that it can take 9 months to even get a hearing date - lots of upset and general aggro for both parties, for the sake of £4,600 redundancy money (for my company, that's petty cash).

Grrr! :mad:

zzzLazyDaisy

Your former post has ceased to exist. By definition that is a redundancy situation.

Your employer has a duty to look for suitable alternative employment to offer you, as an alternative to making you redundant.

If the new post is contractually different from the old post, you have the legal right to a four week trial period in the new post. This period can be extended by agreement for the purpose of retraining. If, during the trial period you find that this new post is not suitable, having given it a genuine trial, you may refuse the post and opt for redundancy instead. If you work just one day over the trial period, you are deemed to have accepted the post, and you then lose your right to a redundancy payment.

Your employer should make the offer of alternative employment to you, in writing, pointing out the differences between the old and the new roles and advising you of your right to a four week trial period.

The advantage of accepting a trial period is that, if the role really is not suitable, you are able to explain why, from your own experience. If you simply refuse the job without giving it a go, a future tribunal may find that you merely acted on an assumption that the role is not suitable, without any evidence to support this.

If, during the trial period, you decide that the job is not for you, and opt for redundancy instead, and the employer refuses to make a redundancy payment, then you would have to leave and take your chances in a tribunal (unless a settlement could be reached through ACAS).

On paper, leaving the job voluntarily amounts to a resignation, so you would make a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, and also for a statutory redundancy payment. You would also make a claim for breach of contract, for your notice pay.

As another poster has said, your first port of call should be ACAS as they will be able to talk you through this.

Good Luck