is this legal -maybe constructive dismissal

motorguy

I think you can only claim for constructive dismissal if you've been forced to resign because your employer has deliberately made your position untenable?

It does sound like there is something going on, but personally i'd sit tight - if he's on a years notice then he should be in a good position financially if they let him go.

mum_of_4

sandford6016 wrote: »

In my opinion, and it's how I view my business, if the people he line manages are going around him to higher managers to get things done, your OH is not doing his job properly!

His managers will be reporting to a manager lower in grade than my OH

ceridwen wrote: »

If I interpret your post correctly - then I guess what is happening is that the company has decided that your O.H. is redundant - but doesnt wish to tell him so (as it would cost them this year's notice + large payout) and they are hoping he will get fed up with "kicking his heels all day" and save them the money by just resigning.


Either way - best for your O.H. to give written letter to whoever is in overall charge asking him to "clarify the situation" as to what tasks he is now required to do. On Friday afternoon he asked for his boss to clarify the situation in writing as his boss has said that the other (new) managers are in the wrong. Basically he is has told my OH that it's all wrong and the board didn't know the restructure would affect my OH role and that questions are being asked.

Now the jobs that were available at his level have been filled he could have applied for them and without a doubt got one of them

Grovester wrote: »

I'm not so sure.

If your role was 'to manage 10 people' and the company decieded that those 10 people are now managed elsewhere then your role is changing significantly. Some people enjoy leading a team.

It's not about being busy it's about being able to do the job you were employed to do and if my understanding of what's happened is correct then the OP cannot do the job they were employed to do and this could in the future restrisct them in their career.

Yes of course he would get a nice pay check but he can't site in an office reading a paper watching others having to work long hours

Late Friday afternoon my OH spoke to CA and they told him to keep all emails that had confirmed the restructure wouldn't impact on his role or his departments. My OH will sit tight as he's guessing that they may offer him a higher role but he really enjoyed his job had great staff that respect him and wouldn't have applied for another job as he was 100% happy.

Apologies that my OP didn't make sense - ceridwen you are spot on with your understanding, thankyou.

motorguy

mum_of_4 wrote: »

Yes of course he would get a nice pay check but he can't site in an office reading a paper watching others having to work long hours.

So you were proposing he would resign instead?

ceridwen

mum_of_4 wrote: »

Apologies that my OP didn't make sense - ceridwen you are spot on with your understanding, thankyou.

No problem...

Glad to know my "gazing through the computer" that I sometimes do on MSE can be helpful...as I just explain what I have seen.

Don't forget - he MUST NOT resign..under any circumstances - whatever happens....(leastways - not unless he manages to find his Dream Job elsewhere in the meantime.....)

ceridwen

pgilc1 wrote: »

I think you can only claim for constructive dismissal if you've been forced to resign because your employer has deliberately made your position untenable?

It does sound like there is something going on, but personally i'd sit tight - if he's on a years notice then he should be in a good position financially if they let him go.

There are doubtless many different ways of defining ones job position as having been made "untenable". What I would imagine (though I'm no lawyer) would be that these would amount to observable objective facts - eg maybe (I'm just speculating here....) something like expecting a person to work a lot longer hours or take a noticeable paycut (though I'm still waiting to see the first person bringing a claim against an employer for this - to see what happens) or provable sexual harassment - summat along those sort of lines I would think (ie a provable fact and that would apply to anyone in that position).

Something like a person "feeling" insecure and/or bored or something - because they had no work to do and it was obvious "pressure" was being put on them to resign is a LOT more subjective - and it would be very much "up in the air" as to whether any Tribunal would find that there had been "constructive dismissal" in a case like that. I wouldnt myself - if I were on one of those Tribunals - I would just think "feelings are totally irrelevant - now just give me the provable facts". After all - loads of people have negative "feelings" one way or another about their job - but the overall stance of Society is that you are expected to continue with that job unless and until it is PROVED that no-one/but no-one could possibly be expected to stay in THAT job in THOSE circumstances. Feelings are not taken into account at all as far as I can see - after all 90% of the workforce could walk out from their jobs tomorrow if they were....

motorguy

ceridwen wrote: »

There are doubtless many different ways of defining ones job position as having been made "untenable". What I would imagine (though I'm no lawyer) would be that these would amount to observable objective facts - eg maybe (I'm just speculating here....) something like expecting a person to work a lot longer hours or take a noticeable paycut (though I'm still waiting to see the first person bringing a claim against an employer for this - to see what happens) or provable sexual harassment - summat along those sort of lines I would think (ie a provable fact and that would apply to anyone in that position).

Something like a person "feeling" insecure and/or bored or something - because they had no work to do and it was obvious "pressure" was being put on them to resign is a LOT more subjective - and it would be very much "up in the air" as to whether any Tribunal would find that there had been "constructive dismissal" in a case like that. I wouldnt myself - if I were on one of those Tribunals - I would just think "feelings are totally irrelevant - now just give me the provable facts". After all - loads of people have negative "feelings" one way or another about their job - but the overall stance of Society is that you are expected to continue with that job unless and until it is PROVED that no-one/but no-one could possibly be expected to stay in THAT job in THOSE circumstances. Feelings are not taken into account at all as far as I can see - after all 90% of the workforce could walk out from their jobs tomorrow if they were....

Totally agree

Grovester_2

I used to work with someone who had her team report to someone else. She was then left with what was essentially an admin job. Her boss, after changing who her team reported to didn't give her any extra work to fill the void. This meant she was left to her own devices. As there was only so much work she could get on a daily basis her boss started asking what do you do all day, she advised him what her day to day activities were. He requested she work for a couple of weeks in another office which she agreed to. He then had all her e-mail forwarded to him. Not copied but forwarded, this meant the out of office did not kick in, personal mails etc. So on her return people were complaining she hadn't done xyz etc. Her boss stated that he was trying to get an idea on the volume of work she was doing. She left, cited CD, and they settled out of court.

So, feelings do come in to it. She was victimised, her role changed and privacy invaded. Of course I don't know which elements made the company think a settlement was better than court.

ceridwen

Grovester wrote: »

I used to work with someone who had her team report to someone else. She was then left with what was essentially an admin job. Her boss, after changing who her team reported to didn't give her any extra work to fill the void. This meant she was left to her own devices. As there was only so much work she could get on a daily basis her boss started asking what do you do all day, she advised him what her day to day activities were. He requested she work for a couple of weeks in another office which she agreed to. He then had all her e-mail forwarded to him. Not copied but forwarded, this meant the out of office did not kick in, personal mails etc. So on her return people were complaining she hadn't done xyz etc. Her boss stated that he was trying to get an idea on the volume of work she was doing. She left, cited CD, and they settled out of court.

So, feelings do come in to it. She was victimised, her role changed and privacy invaded. Of course I don't know which elements made the company think a settlement was better than court.

Again - I add the corollary that I am no lawyer - but I would think the "clue" here is that her emails were not just copied - but "forwarded" to someone else - hence evidence that she was being deliberately bypassed. I wouldnt imagine the "feelings" element came into it - though we can all see how that would apply - but objective "evidence" indicated that her job was being "sent straight past her nose"..for what its worth...thats what I personally estimate happened as to why she won.

mum_of_4

When my OH got into work today one of the MD emailed him to say phone him for a chat. The MD said that on no account did they want to loose my OH and what had happened was completly wrong and that the another MD had studied the new structure and they couldn't see why the problem had occured. He was asked what can we do to ensure you don't leave.

The manager organising the structure is being held accountable and my OH was told he should cancel any meetings that other managers have arranged with his staff. They said it's up to him how he wants things to be done going forward.

So appears that my Oh is Ok and from the telephone call he will be able to move to another position higher up. Of course he's kept a note of all this and he'd already kept emails supporting his case of complaint should he need it.

The manager who has caused all this stress looks likely to suffer himself as he's not handles other situations very well and it's starting to cost the company money.

Thankyou for your help

Zazen999

mum_of_4 wrote: »

When my OH got into work today one of the MD emailed him to say phone him for a chat. The MD said that on no account did they want to loose my OH and what had happened was completly wrong and that the another MD had studied the new structure and they couldn't see why the problem had occured. He was asked what can we do to ensure you don't leave.

The manager organising the structure is being held accountable and my OH was told he should cancel any meetings that other managers have arranged with his staff. They said it's up to him how he wants things to be done going forward.

So appears that my Oh is Ok and from the telephone call he will be able to move to another position higher up. Of course he's kept a note of all this and he'd already kept emails supporting his case of complaint should he need it.

The manager who has caused all this stress looks likely to suffer himself as he's not handles other situations very well and it's starting to cost the company money.

Thankyou for your help

I really really hope you are right.....I really do. But - from past experience - anyone who calls anyone else into a meeting that they themselves have called, and says 'we don't want you to leave' when that person hasn't suggested leaving........is playing a game.

Please ask him not to stop keeping notes and copies of emails anytime soon....until the other manager goes in fact.