Technical Redundancy Advice Needed Please

CFC

Could anyone who has dealt with potential redundancies recently or is fully au fait with current case law respond to this one?

An employer completes work for a number of clients and one client has suddenly and unexpectedly cut budget for 2009. The employees who complete work for that particular client have been put into a collective consultation and told that they are at risk of redundancy.

My question is this: there is one Manager for that 'business unit' who is essentially in a pool of one. The employer has identified potential roles for most of the other staff except for the manager.

The manager feels that essentially the potential management redundancy pool should be wider and appropriate selection procedures applied as all managers of 'business units' do the same job, have the same job title, and the company retains the right to move them between business units when desired, whether the manager wishes to move or not. They are also required to cover other work streams between them and cover for each other if necessary in the case of annual leave.

The company is saying that they are treating the 'business unit' as a distinct entity therefore the manager will remain as the only manager at risk and the pool will remain at one, this person. Although this is naturally convenient for the company as it avoids upsetting other managers, the manager affected does not feel that this is fair or correct.

Your thoughts please?

cazziebo

Apologies for very quick answer as I'm running out...

It could be justified if there are any customer relationships, specialist knowledge, expertise etc in the management positions. It is that one business unit which has reduced business need, and this is reflected in the consultation process only embracing that one unit.

The manager would have more of a case for unfair selection if it is normal practice to move about between units, other than for ad hoc cover.

From the company's point of view, they could do either way. By targetting one business unit, they are confining the consultation and therefore containing any more unrest and distraction.

Completely sympathise with the manager - it looks very unfair from their perspective. If the process was to be extended, then the other managers would no doubt view that as unfair as their units have not lost business.

CFC

Hi Cazzibo,

The managers all have the same competencies in the appraisal process and are judged in terms of the following for performance:

performance of margin achieved against budgeted margin
quality management

There is a dedicated client support team who do in fact have the special relationships with the clients, rather than the managers.

Several months ago, 3 managers were moved around the business, from one business unit to another, because the business wanted to do this. There was no training given to the managers in their new role, because there is no need. A full handover process is not expected to take longer than a half day or a day.

It's all especially annoying as the company has only recently promoted two people to the role of Manager and in a pool it is extremely likely that this manager would be selected in fair criteria over one in particular.

Does this help?

The Manager concerned is likely to be invited to apply for a junior job at a lesser rate of pay rather than actually going out of the door. Does applying for and accepting this position mean that no further action can be taken in terms of unfair selection for redundancy? (ie I have had the interesting thought, could this kind of situation effectively be used as an opportunity to demote someone and cut their pay without any risk?)

cazziebo

Neither is completely right or wrong, it's a choice that has to be made and the employer has plumped for one.

It could only be tested through grievance procedure,

Maybe someone else will come along with a different perspective.

scottn

it's the choice of the employer....and the business case could easily be that contract A has been lost and contract A' employees are at risk of redundancy.

indeed he could raise a grievance, but i imagine the company will stick to its original selection pool - i doubt the company would want a team of disgruntled managers at risk.

and yes, in theory it could be used to 'demote' an employee. I doubt the junior role would be a suitable alternative for them and the choice would be redundancy or alternative role.

the manager at risk could consider if 'bumping' was available, ie. a employee not at risk may want to be made redundant (yes, interesting times to choose redundancy but someone might do well out of it) and the manager at risk could move out of the selection pool.