Is it legal to decide in advance exactly who is to be made redundant ?

Fatboy40

Now I'm not certain of whether or not I'm correct here, I think I'm ultmimately going to have to contact a solicitors and pay for a consultation.

Around 8 staff where I work are 'at risk' of being made redundant and the consultation process has begun, however, I firmly believe that a decison has been made in advance (at least four weeks in advance, if not more) in regards to the EXACT individuals they intend to make redundant. I also firmly believe that there would be various electronic files to prove this (e-mails, documents and spreadsheets etc that name specific individuals).

Now I'm not certain, but am I correct in my belief that prior to consultation the business must not have decided in advance in regards to the exact employees it intends to make redundant ?.

Thanks.

lucylucky

There must be an open and transparent process.

However that is not to say that the criteria used to select people cannot be "weighted" in a certain way which would perhaps favour some over others.

shellsuit

I don't know for sure, but in my Dad's work, one of the lads has been told, if anyone has to go it will be him.

Why?

Because he is the youngest so it will be the cheapest option to let him go first.

Forget that people have not been there as long as him but they all do the exact same job.

I'd be interested in the replies to this thread.

Fatboy40

lucylucky,

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe that the criteria have been "weighted" in any way, the public facing side of the redundancy procedure has been correct and to the letter of the law.

However, I think I may have read somewhere once that deciding in advance the exact named employees you intend to make redundant is not lawfull ?. Of course with a logical head on a manager or director of a business has to know in advance the exact employees it has to make redundant, otherwise how can it judge how to save money and ensure the continuation of the business and support of its business processes ?.

Pete111

It is possible you may be able to construct a technical argument around this, but hugely unlikely.

'Desktop' assessments are a perfectly legal methodology and quite often undertaken behind the scenes prior to the redundancy consultation formally beginning. As long as there was a proper consultation following this and the resyults of this then considered also (for example, someone may opt to take voluntary redundancy or two people may ask for a job share which could fundamentally change things) , I doubt a tribunal would consider the company to have acted unlawfully by basically being organised in advance of a redundancy process

I have done these processes many times and you always know who is in the frame beforehand - even if the consultation then throws something up that changes things.

Even if a tribunal did question the timing I have to ask though - what proof will you have that this was incorrect or an unfair crtiteria used? If you don''t have anything controversial in your hand at the moment but you think the company are going to simply hand over (even after a FOI request) emails that may say something like:

Dear Manager A

Please tell me who you most dislike in your team and we will fit a redundancy process around getting them out the door.

Yours
Director B

- then I think you will be disappointed...

Sorry!

P

lucylucky

shellsuit wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but in my Dad's work, one of the lads has been told, if anyone has to go it will be him.
Who told him this? How was he told this?
Why?

Because he is the youngest so it will be the cheapest option to let him go first. Not necessarily

Forget that people have not been there as long as him but they all do the exact same job. Are you saying that people with less experience and service are being paid more than him?

I'd be interested in the replies to this thread.

My questions and comments in red

Ewarwoowar2

Fatboy40 wrote: »

Now I'm not certain of whether or not I'm correct here, I think I'm ultmimately going to have to contact a solicitors and pay for a consultation.

Around 8 staff where I work are 'at risk' of being made redundant and the consultation process has begun, however, I firmly believe that a decison has been made in advance (at least four weeks in advance, if not more) in regards to the EXACT individuals they intend to make redundant. I also firmly believe that there would be various electronic files to prove this (e-mails, documents and spreadsheets etc that name specific individuals).

Now I'm not certain, but am I correct in my belief that prior to consultation the business must not have decided in advance in regards to the exact employees it intends to make redundant ?.

Thanks.

This is one of those reality means legality situations.

Employers should have an open mind going into redundancy situations. Prior to the consultation, a decision should not even have been made whether redundancies will be made at all. Consultation is about considering ways to avoid redundancy.

After consultation, when the decision has been made to make employees redundant, an employer is require to have a fair procedure to select the employees that will be made redundant. The procedure, usually scoring, should be open and fair. It should be used to select the employee(s) who will be made redundant. If a decision has been made who will be made redundant before the scoring/fair procedure, then the dismissal will be procedurally unfair.

The reality of the situation is that for almost all redundancy situations in which I have advised the employer, the person or people who will be dismissed have already been selected in the mind of the employer. The legal advice is the process the employer has to go through to make the dismissals fair.

Back to your situation, can you prove that the employer wants you out? You will need hard evidence for a tribunal to take you seriously.

Secondly, even if you prove that your redundancy was pre-selected, the employer could argue that you would have been the one to go if a fair procedure had been followed. If the employer can convince a tribunal that you would have been sacked anyway, then your claim will not be worth very much.

If you do want to save your job, put in a grievance regarding unfair pre-selection. If your employer thinks that you will take them to the tribunal if they make you redundant it just might save your job.

Fatboy40

Ewarwoowar2,

Your reply was pretty much what I was thinking (thanks for that), and was worth it purely for the phrase 'reality means legality', priceless.

zorber

shellsuit wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but in my Dad's work, one of the lads has been told, if anyone has to go it will be him.

Why?

Because he is the youngest so it will be the cheapest option to let him go first.

Forget that people have not been there as long as him but they all do the exact same job.

I'd be interested in the replies to this thread.

they may well be still be on probation or a temp contract