Can he be made redundant if his job is changed?

josephine1_2

My partners company has already made some redundancies and now he along with 6 others have been 'selected' to fight for their job. At the same time the company has decided within his department to change everybodies job description, I have a vague memory of someone saying in this situation he has to be given the chance to prove he can do the new job before they can make him redundant. Am I right We have a child and are desperate to keep his job, so not sure if I'm remembering the right thing?

getmore4less

Looks like they have selected 7 people at risk of redundancy because there are fewer and possibly slightly different jobs.

The company needs to do a fair selection procedure for the jobs on offer from the pool of people. This process should be transparent.

They should also consult on other ways to reduce the impact of the changes and ways to avoid redundancies if possible by deploying elswhere if there are not enough positions in the current department

If the job is a potential suitable alternative to the current role then there should be the option for a 4 weeks trial period to see if it is suitable.

If the OH does not want the job but is selected then they would need to have a good reason to refuse. An example might be the new role includes an element not in the old role like team leading which the OH feels they cannot do. If the ywant the job then it is important to identify any training needs early to avoid future performance related issues.

zzzLazyDaisy

How long has your OH worked for this company?

josephine1_2

Thanks both, he's worked there for over 2 years. These new roles, are just a way to cut staff. But, he is able to do most of the new job as it involves aspects of accounts work he's done in previous jobs. This process isn't being made transparent, as he doesn't know who the other 5 people, just that they have picked 1 from various departments.

Part of the reason he was selected, is we have a 1 year old daughter and last year because of illness and other factors, I was unable to work in much of my pregnancy. I'm self-employed and so we couldn't cope on just his wage as I had been the main wage earner. Other factors included, we filed for BR in October last year, now because of this and the stress and time it took to do this, my partner took 6 weeks off work. We have told them we were under huge financial problems which have now been resolved, and he has never taken in 20 years of working time off for stress. But I think this is why he was chosen

zzzLazyDaisy

So sorry to hear about your problems.

I am not clear here about what has happened - sorry I'm not a morning person and it is probably me just being dim. You talk about him being 'picked', which sounds like he is being treated differently from his colleagues.

Is he part of a group of people who do the same job, but only his job has gone?

Or, is he employed to do one particular job, and they are now saying that job no longer exists, but that he can apply for another job?

Or has the company already been through a selection process and he scored less than the others who were potentially at risk of redundancy? (in which case, he should have been given full information on how he came to be selected, and also the opportunity to raise any concerns or issues before the final decision was made to select him)

Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but it is important that we get a clear picture.

josephine1_2

Heh, I appreciate you taking the time to answer, so of course you're not being pedantic He works in an office, he is the only member in his team as he runs the purchase ledger department, so it's fairly autonomous. There are about 6 other people who do other accounts related positions that are different, the company wants them now to all be able to do the same 'new' role. He did score lower I believe and so was selected. But, the boss who scored him then went on holiday for 2 weeks and so he has been able to put forward his case in has absence and now the boss has returned he has a meeting tomorrow to continue challenging the scores and state he can do the new 'general accounts' role. The first meeting where he challenged the scores, seemed to go quite well There was daft scores like 5 out of 10 for speed, well as he pointed out he never misses any deadlines and accuracy which he got 8 for is more important in accounts as mistakes can be costly!

zzzLazyDaisy

josephine1 wrote: »

He works in an office, he is the only member in his team as he runs the purchase ledger department, so it's fairly autonomous.

SOoooo..... what is happening to his job? is it possible for the purchase ledger department to continue to operate with no-one running it? will there no longer be a dedicated person running the purchase ledger department? will those tasks simply be absorbed into the roles of another person/other people? will the PL dept be merged with another, with one person running the two depts? or, if he goes, will one of the 'all singing all dancing' people simply replace him as the person responsible for running the purchase ledger department?

Sorry about the questions - its just that some things they can do, and some they can't.

josephine1_2

Again thanks His company has 2 offices in this country, Brum and London. THey got rid of the purchase ledger person in London, so he is the only one in this country with a full understanding of his job. As his company's cashflow is largely reciprocal, they need to always make sure payments are made; so we don't understand how they can even consider trying to absorb his role Unless for a few months they just don't want to pay anyone, or be paid themselves They can try and absorb parts of his role, like reconciling statements etc, but urgent stuff like payments will be much harder. THe problem is, they told him to go home and prepare his case over 2 weeks ago on full pay, he's had 2 meetings to attend in this time, but in that time obviously he hasn't been able to do his job and we are trying to argue he is essential!

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, thanks for bearing with me on this.

The first thing you need to be clear about is that the employer is allowed to reorganise its business in the way it sees fit. Of course, your OH must put his point of view across, but if this all goes belly up and he loses his job, no employment tribunal in the land will interfere with a business decision by the employer. So if the employer decides to go ahead and do away with the position of purchase ledger manager, there isn't much can be done about that.

This isn't a case of your OH being chosen, it is a case of his job ceasing to exist (I realise that probably sounds like a spin, but it is different in law)

So, if your OH is unsuccessful in persuading them to retain his position (and I am sorry to say that they are unlikely to change their mind on this) then his job will disappear, and that meets the criteria for redundancy.

The next step is that the employer has a duty to look for suitable alternative employment to offer the employee, to avoid having to terminate his employment. Hence OH being invited to apply for this other position.

If there are other people in the same boat as OH (ie being faced with redundancy) who have the skills to do the new job(s) on offer, then they must also be given the opportunity to apply. If there are fewer alternative positions than potentially redundant employees, then at the end of the exercise some people will be out of work.

As someone else has said, if he is offered the alternative post, but there are significant differences to the job he does now, then he has the right to a 4 week trial period.

If the whole exercise is a sham - ie, they want to get rid of your OH so have dreamed up this reorganisation so they can put someone else into his job, then that is of course unlawful. But unfortunately, in the current credit crunch climate, it isn't difficult for a company to show that they really do need to make cutbacks.

So if I were in OH's shoes, I'd put my case for retaining his current position, but then I'd put all my energy into proving I was the best man for the new post.

I don't know if this clarifies or confuses things for you? If I haven't understood the situation properly, or if you have other questions, please do keep posting and I'll try and help if I can.

Ewarwoowar2

What did you mean by this:

Part of the reason he was selected, is we have a 1 year old daughter and last year because of illness and other factors, I was unable to work in much of my pregnancy.

zzzLazyDaisy

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

What did you mean by this:

Part of the reason he was selected, is we have a 1 year old daughter and last year because of illness and other factors, I was unable to work in much of my pregnancy.

OP says further down that as a result he had to take 6 weeks off work.

Just a thought - how was his work covered during that period? Did they take on someone else to do his work, or was it shared out among the other members of staff? I'm just wondering if they are taking the view that they no longer need a purchase ledger manager, precisely because they coped without OH during that time?