Clarification of consulation process

markbrett64

Hi All,

I am currently in a consultation regarding my role being made redundant and I am trying to find some further information regarding "suitable alternative employment". My role is being made redundant due to a restucture and consequently the management element of my role has been redistributed. The project management element remains and my employer is creating a new project manager role to cater for this.

While it's not an ideal situation, I would prefer at this point to not go out of work so would consider this role as an alternative. I am professionally qualified PM of more than 10 years and the new role is the same as I was recruited for prior to a promotion.

During the first consultation meeting it was clear that my employer didn't fully understand the redundancy process, particularly with regard to their obligations to seek alternatives to redundancy. They were insistent that if I was interested in any other role, I would have to go through a normal interview process versus other candidates both internal and external. I challenged this as it conflicted with the legal advice I have been given. My understanding was that if there was a suitable alternative role, i.e. I deemed it suitable, then if I expressed an interest in it, my employer was obligated to offer it to me.

I verbally have expressed an initial interest in the role.

My employer has now written to me to invite me to a meeting for further discussion of the role. This meeting will be with my old boss and potential new boss. This sounds awfully like an interview to me (!). They have also said this meeting is outside the consultation process. I am going to the meeting, as unwillingness could be construed as refusal to accept. I just wanted to get some opinions / advice beforehand.

1. Are they allowed to interview me for a role I deem as "suitable alternative employment"?

2. What are the implications of this being outside the consultation process? Thanks in advance.

getmore4less

I think only those returning from maternity have to be offered suitable alternatives automaticaly.

It would make sense to let you have the job if they think it will work, but they might have someone else in mind and will not be replacing them if they give them the job.

Another angle to readup on is bumping.

markbrett64

Could you clarify what 'bumping' is please?

There is no other internal candidate... in fact they are already advertising the new role externally.

As they are obligated to seek alternatives to redundancy, surely in a case where there is a single redundancy and no internal alternative, if they are able to hold interviews for a new role that I deem suitable, there is nothing to stop them claiming a better, external candidate has emerged and consequently not offer me the job?

In that way, they could use the guise of redundancy to effectively dismiss me?

getmore4less

Bumping is where your job is redundant, but you bump someone out of their job and they get made redundant.

Not used much

markbrett64

Ok, thanks for the info... my googling was rubbish!

Just on the maternity leave issue, it's actually that women on maternity leave have priority in situations relating to availability of alternative roles.

pelirocco

getmore4less wrote: »

I think only those returning from maternity have to be offered suitable alternatives automaticaly.

It would make sense to let you have the job if they think it will work, but they might have someone else in mind and will not be replacing them if they give them the job.

Another angle to readup on is bumping.

Wrong , an employer must consider offering an alternative role before redundancy

http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-46.php3?id_article=1756...........just one of many articles on it

getmore4less

pelirocco wrote: »

Wrong , an employer must consider offering an alternative role before redundancy

http://www.tssa.org.uk/article-46.php3?id_article=1756...........just one of many articles on it

I believe they only have to be considered for the position not automaticaly offered it.

Lady007

I can't understand as to why your boss is saying the meeting to discuss you going into the new role is outside of the process. They are obilged to consider you but don't have to appoint you. With your prior experience I can not see why they would need to go externally to recruit and also it would save money by not paying you any redundancy.

Take visible notes at any meting you attend as they will come in useful if you need to take this further. Your boss will also be more mindful of what he actually says. Don't forget your entitlement to a trial period raise this issue if your boss is unaware.

If you aren't appointed - appeal in writing asking why you weren't suitable.

Pete111

You do have the right to be considered but an employer can choose not to automatically place you in a role. However to reduce risk their rationale for this should be reasonable and it is far harder for them to justify this if both parties agree the new role is SAE.

Have you confirmed with them that they agree the new role is SAE? If not then you should try to prove to/convince them that it is. If they do agree this and there are no other candidates (assume not?) then they will have to go some to point blank refuse you a shot at it on a trial basis.

I too find it odd that they are insisting the meeting is outside the process - sounds like they are trying to have a side conversation that they don't really want logged as part of the consultation. Check whether you can bring a companion and if they say no at the very least make sure you take notes!