Do companies have to prove the reason for redundancy?

ebeneezer_2

The reason given by my employer is untrue and definitely not the reason they want to get rid of me - are they required to offer any form of proof for the reason stated, or can they make up any old tosh?

getmore4less

They should engage in consultation which should be meaningfull.

This is the time to document their responses to you query of the reasons and put in a grievence if you are not happy

anamenottaken

What is the real reason that you perceive for their wanting to get rid of you?

Emmzi

they are only required to prove it if challenged at tribunal. but you can ask many awkward questions during consultation in order to build your case. they may rethink as a result of your questioning.

ebeneezer_2

They are claiming that now I have trained their staff they no longer need me to lead their projects.
a. I was employed on permanent contract and have only been there just over a year
b. They can't manage to run the projects with me so certainly won't succeed without me
c. If they really are as good as they claim (!), in just over a year I have achieved what Toyota have been working on for decades - you'd think they'd be desperate to keep me
d. I completed the training within my second month in the job. <10% of staff have been involved in projects since so the other >90% will have forgotten most if not all and certainly will not have gained competency. If they really just wanted me for the training they could/should have ditched me when my probabtion period was up (incidentally, when I took the job there was no mention of probabtion, the first I knew was a letter telling me I'd completed it)

The real reason (as far as I am concerned) is:
They employed me in a role because they heard great things about what could be delivered. They didn't and still don't understand that in order to achieve these results they needed to invest the resource and give visible support from the top - which they have failed to do. I have asked on many occasions for senior mangement help because the staff I am supposed to be working with are not making time available for these projects and openly admit that they thought the projects were optional. A large part of my job is to highlight areas for improvement (tell them what they are doing wrong and recommend actions), and they don't like to hear it. Ultimately, the organisation took me on for a role without fully understanding it, now they realise that I can not magically fix everything on my own, instead of providing the resource and infrastructure to help, they are getting rid of me.

ceridwen

As I understand it - there is some sort of scale they are supposed to work these things out on. People are allocated so many points as to how "flexible" they are, so many for "length of service", I think the number of days sick leave is one of the factors??? and there are various other factors as well that get given a certain number of points (depending on whereabouts on the "points scale" each person is).

Its a lot more complicated way of working things out than the old norm of "last in first out".

I think this is what you are thinking of. I dont actually have a sample "points scale" to hand to quote as an example. Maybe there might be an example of such a thing on a website like "Personel Today"??

How "formal" an organisation is on establishing their selection criteria for redundancy probably depends how large and "formal" the employing organisation is. I would imagine any large firm or public sector body would have to have some means of justifying why they chose person x - rather than person y.

EDIT; Theres probably something like that on:

www.redundancyforum.co.uk

woody01

b. They can't manage to run the projects with me so certainly won't succeed without me

It's astonishing how many people think they cannot be replaced and the entire corporate world will fall into anarchy and chaos if they lose their job.

As much as i feel for anyone that has lost/about to lose their jobs, the companies they work invariably carry on regardless.

prowla

ebeneezer wrote: »

They are claiming that now I have trained their staff they no longer need me to lead their projects.
a. I was employed on permanent contract and have only been there just over a year
b. They can't manage to run the projects with me so certainly won't succeed without me
c. If they really are as good as they claim (!), in just over a year I have achieved what Toyota have been working on for decades - you'd think they'd be desperate to keep me
d. I completed the training within my second month in the job. <10% of staff have been involved in projects since so the other >90% will have forgotten most if not all and certainly will not have gained competency. If they really just wanted me for the training they could/should have ditched me when my probabtion period was up (incidentally, when I took the job there was no mention of probabtion, the first I knew was a letter telling me I'd completed it)

The real reason (as far as I am concerned) is:
They employed me in a role because they heard great things about what could be delivered. They didn't and still don't understand that in order to achieve these results they needed to invest the resource and give visible support from the top - which they have failed to do. I have asked on many occasions for senior mangement help because the staff I am supposed to be working with are not making time available for these projects and openly admit that they thought the projects were optional. A large part of my job is to highlight areas for improvement (tell them what they are doing wrong and recommend actions), and they don't like to hear it. Ultimately, the organisation took me on for a role without fully understanding it, now they realise that I can not magically fix everything on my own, instead of providing the resource and infrastructure to help, they are getting rid of me.

From what you say, it seems that they have decided that they don't need the function you do.
Rightly or wrongly, perhaps, but there y'go.

ebeneezer_2

Thank you to those who have provided helpful and supportive information and advice.

At no point have I claimed that I cannot be replaced (indeed anybody with the appropriate qualifications and experience and ability to challenge the status quo could take on the role) or that the entire corporate world would fall into anarchy and chaos if I lost my job. I agree, the company will carry on regardless. However, I was employed to help them make changes, so when I go, unless they do replace me - which they should not IF the reason they are giving for the redundancy is true, they will just carry on doing what they always did.