possible unfair redundancy selection

aah

Redundancy selection is being made by competition in our place. Everyone has to apply for the reduced number of jobs available.

Ther company has an annual appraisal system in place. Everyone gets an appraisal once per year against the business objectives. The line manager identifies training needed at this appraisal and the training manager sources it.

If someone were selected for redundancy - ie they did not perform as well as others in the competitive interview - would the fact that they had not had an appraisal for nearly three years count as unfair selection. All other staff had had their appraisals more or less on time.....

loofer

Employers are well within their rights to select people for redundancy based on their performance - which can be assessed by interview - in this case asking you all to apply for a small number of jobs.

Employer isn't legally obliged to provide you yearly appraisals/reviews/training (unless neccessary for the job). Of course there's no doubt that the lack of appraisals puts you at a disadvantage compared with your peers.

The interview is based on how you perform on the day, so even those that get the highest markings every year could fail (the assessment criteria should be fair, objective and transparent).

I suppose the only thing you can do is highlight the point that you havn't had as much training/development opportunity but given the chance you have the postential to offer alot to the business - but this implies they would have to invest further in your training.

Focus on your strengths

briona

aah wrote: »

Redundancy selection is being made by competition in our place. Everyone has to apply for the reduced number of jobs available.

Ther company has an annual appraisal system in place. Everyone gets an appraisal once per year against the business objectives. The line manager identifies training needed at this appraisal and the training manager sources it.

If someone were selected for redundancy - ie they did not perform as well as others in the competitive interview - would the fact that they had not had an appraisal for nearly three years count as unfair selection. All other staff had had their appraisals more or less on time.....

Something of a contradiction in the two highlighted bits – either appraisals are annual or they're not?!

That aside, asking X number of staff to compete for Y number of jobs is fairly common practice. The fact that you are getting a chance to apply for one of the available positions shows that you are not being unfairly discriminated against.

Despite not having a recent appraisal, you can improve your chances of being successful at interview by highlighting your achievements – think about what you've done over the past couple of years – targets you've met, processes you've implemented/improved etc. Focus on the positive rather than the negative, show them what you have done and you'll have as good a chance as anyone else of getting one of the jobs.

Best of luck.

Briona

aah

briona wrote: »

– either appraisals are annual or they're not?

Yep, you did take that literally, and I was not clear.

People are meant to have annual appraisals. The company stipulates that line managers should instigate annual appriasals. Most line managers adhere to this, but a few don't.

My contention is that someone whose line manager has neglected the annual appraisal and training process is at a disadvantage in the redundancy competition.

In this case do you think they may be unfairly selected for redundancy against those who have had full advantage of the appraisal and training process.

Thanks for reading this far.
A. x

LittleVoice

Could be said that those who have not been appraised annually should have taken the initiative to get it done and be open for development opportunities.