Compulsory redundancies far higher than originally agreed

SapphireFlames

Earlier this year I went through a redundancy selection process. There were about 140 people in our department, and at the beginning of the re-structure we were told by the head of department that only 25 jobs would be lost. As this seemed like a fairly low proportion, I wasn't overly concerned, although I took the process very seriously. However, at the end of the selection process, I was told that I was one of the people selected for redundancy and I was very shocked and upset about that. As the day went on, I found out that many of my close colleagues had been selected for redundancy too. (Voluntary redundancy wasn't even an option, so all the redundancies were compulsory).

After the re-structure, we were never told the exact number of compulsory redundancies, but I always suspected that it was much higher than the 25 that had been originally agreed. It seemed that nearly half the department had been made redundant! When I tried to ask why this was, I only got a very vague answer, saying that the "bar was raised very high during the re-structure process".

I had various other concerns about the selection process and I was going to appeal, but my manager pressurised me not to, hinting that it may affect my future prospects. So I decided not to appeal. Instead of accepting my redundancy straight away, I accepted a temporary internal job working in the HR department of the same company. I now have access to a lot of the facts and figures. I recently found out that there are 60 fewer people working in my old department than there were before the re-structure took place. This is much higher than 25! Does this mean that the employer hasn't followed the correct procedure? Can an employer really agree on a certain number of job cuts before the selection process begins, and then suddenly increase that number once that selection process has actually started?

jazzyman01

They can, but you need to be made aware. Did you have representatives? If so, they would have definitely had to be informed. If you did not, did you elect not to?
The Company would also have had to submit the number to the government because the number was over 20.

SapphireFlames

We weren't made aware of the increase in redundancies, not even after the results of the selection process were announced. There was one day where everyone in the department was called into a room, one by one, to be told whether they had been offered a job in the new structure or not. A few days later, the new structure charts were published with the names of the successful people, but we were never officially told the names of the people who were made redundant or how many - we had to figure that out for ourselves.

As for representatives, there is an elected employee forum (it was set up by the company, so it's not an external organisation like Unite or Unison etc) but they don't seem to do very much. They have meetings every few months but we never really get to hear about what they do. Their constitution forbids them from helping members of staff individually (so they can't help out at appeals or anything like that, they are only allowed to discuss things which affect all of the staff). In the 4 years that I've been at the company, I have never once met an employee representative! At the start of the restructure, I don't remember the company even telling anyone how to directly contact a representative, although we were told that they exist and that they had been informed about the restructure.

Lakeuk

Companies I've know about make recent announcement usually same x number of jobs are at risk and those affected reapply for their jobs, it's not normally been know what roles are able until very close to interview stage, and these things can change. I've know occassions when they've put someone notice and than realised how vital they are.

Be aware of your current role you are in privlaged position with access to 'confidencial data'

Anihilator

Were exactly was an agreement of 25 people?

The head of department saying that isnt an agreement and they are quite in their right to change that.

The number made redundant is irrelevent. If your not happy with the process appeal.

getmore4less

The employee forum may not have been suitable representation for the redundancy process.

If they are acceptable looks like they may not have done their job properly.

Pete111

Sounds like the employee reps were not very proactive (or perhaps not told what they needed to do) but given the process should be the same for 25 people being made redundant as it is for 60 I don't think the overall number of redundancies gives you lots to beat your company over the head with very effectively

I expect the company would turn around and say that they initially expected it to be around 25 but worstening economic conditions blah blah... this may actually be the case so lets not ignore that.

I guess as others have suggested then you coudl query the process if you feekl this was fundamentally flawed but pragmatically speaking you still have a role within the company for now so don't shoot yourself in the foot if you have nothing else to move to.

Equally, potentially making use of privileged info in the way you inply is unlikely to endear you to Mgt. What you definately do not want is to be kicked out for misue of confidential data (ie if you go around telling all and sundry in the company HR facts and figures etc) You would lose any future redundancy pay as it could quite easily be classed as gross misconduct.

P

jazzyman01

Dont disagree that a company can increase the numbers, but that does not mean they can get away with not consulting re the increased numbers that will go. How reps can consult with managers without discussing it with their constituents is beyond me.

p00hsticks

SapphireFlames wrote: »

As for representatives, there is an elected employee forum (it was set up by the company, so it's not an external organisation like Unite or Unison etc) but they don't seem to do very much. They have meetings every few months but we never really get to hear about what they do. Their constitution forbids them from helping members of staff individually (so they can't help out at appeals or anything like that, they are only allowed to discuss things which affect all of the staff). In the 4 years that I've been at the company, I have never once met an employee representative! At the start of the restructure, I don't remember the company even telling anyone how to directly contact a representative, although we were told that they exist and that they had been informed about the restructure.

So did you get to vote for these representatives ? Why didn't you ask the company how you contact them ? And then pester them for information ?

I don't believe there is anything to stop you joining a union on your own initiative if you want to - even if the company doesn't officially recognise it could still give you individual advice.

CFC

jazzyman01 wrote: »

Dont disagree that a company can increase the numbers, but that does not mean they can get away with not consulting re the increased numbers that will go. How reps can consult with managers without discussing it with their constituents is beyond me.

it's all pretty irrelevant really. ! They do not consult with the employee forums although they may tell the employee forum in confidence what is going on, the redundancy consultation process is with the affected employees.

the employee forum will rarely refer to redundancies in their minutes, ef s are usually purely window dressing

jazzyman01

Beg to differ. I always consulted with our employee forums. We had regular meetings and there was a lot of good stuff that came out of them.
When there were redundancies, they were informed before any announcements made to the rest of the staff and were taken through the reasons in great detail. Reps were given time to discuss with the rest of the staff to get their input and it was then discussed at the consultation meetings.