Selected for Redundancy

Kaiyo

Hi everyone,

I have been provisionally selected for redundancy. I currently work in a department of 3 people consisting of a manager, senior and junior. The senior role is the position I have and only I have been selected. The following reasons for my selection have been put forward to me as:

1) That the amount of work has diminished significantly due to unforeseen circumstances, therefore requiring fewer people to perform the necessary tasks.
2) My manager having served longer than me and being more senior has automatically secured his place.
3) My role being "in the middle", work can be offloaded to my manager and junior.
4) Due to my salary being significantly more than the person in the junior role, therefore it is deemed to be more economical for them to keep the junior rather than myself.
5) They will be considering the option of subcontracting out work in future should more work arise.

Are these reasons for selection deemed to be fair? I have looked everywhere on ACAS and BERR but there is nothing under "unfair dismissals" that covers these points. Hopefully some of you may be able to shed some light on this.

Thanking you all in advance

maninthestreet

2) conflicts with 4).

Kaiyo

maninthestreet wrote: »

2) conflicts with 4).

You have a good point there, but I believe their choice is based on my manager having served a longer period of time 11 yrs as opposed to my 6 yrs. This is in my opinion, more of a loyalty issue.

sunshinejoclaire

Kaiyo wrote: »

You have a good point there, but I believe their choice is based on my manager having served a longer period of time 11 yrs as opposed to my 6 yrs. This is in my opinion, more of a loyalty issue.

I didn't think they were allowed to this as it can be construed as age discrimination!

Kaiyo

Am I allowed to ask HR to provide a letter which states the reasons for my selection for redundancy? What should happen if they refuse?

mygadgets4u

well my wife works for homebase and maybe being made redundant for simlar reasons wife has read the hand book and seems a crafty way around her's.

reheat

Redundancy is about a company demonstrating a good business case (I know how insensitive that sounds, but that's the way it is I'm afraid) for making people redundant. It's not about dismissing people with accusations of them not doing their job properly. And when market conditions go to pot as they currently are, a business that needed X people some time back, may well not have the business nor money coming in to need/pay that many people.

Looking at what you say, I rather think your company is within its rights. If you try and stand back objectively - ever so difficult I know - and imagine you had been given responsibility for making a similar decision about a similar department ... what option might you have gone for? If you conclude you would have done the same, then try to accept the inevitable and move positively on. If you honestly think you would have decided differently, then maybe there is something for you to contest.

Best of luck either way.

dickydonkin

You say that you have been provisionally selected for redundancy?

Is your role unique or do other people perform that role? ie as per their job description?

If others perform the same role, those people should have been placed in a selection pool with you, a selection matrix comprising of a balance of subjective and objective criteria and a scoring system agreed to determine who will be selected.

Everyone in the pool will be deemed as "at risk" and a consultation process should commence.

Using length of service is generally not discriminatory provided that criteria is used with other factors such as time, attendance, disciplinary records etc, as it is an objective criterion and some companies use this factor as a criterion in a selection matrix.

Using length of service as the only deciding factor in making an employee redundant (LIFO-Last in first out), could potentially cause problems in respect of age discrimination.

You stated that your company may be sub contracting work out at a later date? If that refers to your role, you can argue if there is actually a genuine need for redundancy. You cannot make someone redundant from a position and once they have gone, employ a temp or sub contract your work out.

On the information given, it appears that a pool of two exists between you and the junior role. A selection matrix should be devised and scored accordingly. If you both perform the same roles, your company just cannot dismiss you based on the fact that it will save money as your wages are higher.

Your company on announcing any redundancies should have explained the reason for the need to reduce the workforce - I find this highly irregular that you have not been informed of this -it is a statutory requirement. They also should be discussing ways to avoid redundancies - not how to mitigate their loss of manpower when you have gone - that is rubbing salt into the wounds. There may be a genuine need for redundancies in youer workplace, but there are procedures that need to be conformed to and it would seem your company is ignoring such requirements.

Seek advice.

Kaiyo

Due to having to come to terms with all this (state of mind), I choose to have no opinion upon their method of selection. I prefer to hear from other people whether it was fair or not.

They have mentioned the reasons why redundancies are necessary as mention in point (1). To elaborate, business has been poor recently which meant they have been forced to make cuts in the workforce, as there is simply not enough work to keep everyone busy and the company does not have the funds to keep people with the hope that business will pick up again.

There are 3 people who perform basically the same role but split into Manager - Senior - Junior. It is only I who has been selected for redundancy. The Manager has been kept because he has been longer serving at the company and deemed to have more experience than me. The Junior has been kept as he does the more maudane work and is on a significantly lower salary; he has actually been at the company for the shortest period, so it is not a case of LIFO. I have been selected because I am on more money than the Junior and currently there is not enough work to go round the 3 of us; they have assessed that the work that does come in can be shared between the Manager and Junior efficiently.

snuggle69

if there is more than one of you carrying out the same role then you will go into a "pool" they then have to carry out the scoring via selection criteria, you should then get a letter which encloses your scores, and a meeting date which allows you to discuss them!

if they make you redundant just because you get paid more or someone has more service, it would be deemed as unfair if they did not go through the correct consultation procedure

reheat

snuggle69 wrote: »

if there is more than one of you carrying out the same role then you will go into a "pool" they then have to carry out the scoring via selection criteria, you should then get a letter which encloses your scores, and a meeting date which allows you to discuss them!

if they make you redundant just because you get paid more or someone has more service, it would be deemed as unfair if they did not go through the correct consultation procedure

I don't think that's quite right. The seniority distinctions are themselves adequate distinctions of roles. I left a department of 50 or so engineers, and only the more senior ones were selected as being "at risk" ... only a percentage of them then actually being made redundant. I'm certain this was all legal.