Advice needed on Redundancy please

Moneysavingginge

Hi Guys

Just needed some advice on this situation here.

Situation is this : There's 2 shops in this area (same company), a Manager and a assist manager in both.

Shop A are closing down, shop B isn't.

So there's 4 managers in total. What the people from above are going to do is use a formula to decide who are the best 2 managers and use them in shop B.

Just so happens that the 2 managers in shop A are the best options and the 2 managers in shop B are going to be made redundant.

Does this sound right?? Is it legal??

Thanks in advance

getmore4less

The only thing I can think of that might make this suspect is that contracts were for employement only in the specific stores since this could eliminate the need for pooling employees.

SarEl

Nope - it's not only legal but it is correct process. The fact that individiual contracts may specify a specific work location isn't relevant. What is relevant is that there are a certain number of broadly similar jobs in the same company that have to go, and a larger group of people holding those jobs than the number that will remain at the end of the exercise. Strictly speaking, there is an argument for including every store manager in the entire company, but the logistics and practicality of this would be awesomely stupid - including a store manager how may work 200 miles away is not really on. Having said that, if they are not careful, they could end up making the situation quite complex (which is where the lawyers then start making their money). For example, you might argue that the store managers 10 miles away, and the ones 25 miles away, do the same job and since it would be possible for you to do their job, you want to "bump" them into the process and have 8 people competing for 6 jobs and not 4 people competing for 2. But one thing is certain - making the staff redundant because of the store in which they work, if there are others doing the same job, is very unlikely to be fair if challenged. The big question exists around how many more people should be fairly included?

Moneysavingginge

SarEl wrote: »

Nope - it's not only legal but it is correct process. The fact that individiual contracts may specify a specific work location isn't relevant. What is relevant is that there are a certain number of broadly similar jobs in the same company that have to go, and a larger group of people holding those jobs than the number that will remain at the end of the exercise. Strictly speaking, there is an argument for including every store manager in the entire company, but the logistics and practicality of this would be awesomely stupid - including a store manager how may work 200 miles away is not really on. Having said that, if they are not careful, they could end up making the situation quite complex (which is where the lawyers then start making their money). For example, you might argue that the store managers 10 miles away, and the ones 25 miles away, do the same job and since it would be possible for you to do their job, you want to "bump" them into the process and have 8 people competing for 6 jobs and not 4 people competing for 2. But one thing is certain - making the staff redundant because of the store in which they work, if there are others doing the same job, is very unlikely to be fair if challenged. The big question exists around how many more people should be fairly included?

Thanks for your input.

So the people in shop B (even though there doing exactly the same job and its not there shop closing down) won't have any grounds for a tribunal ??

Pete111

Moneysavingginge wrote: »

Thanks for your input.

So the people in shop B (even though there doing exactly the same job and its not there shop closing down) won't have any grounds for a tribunal ??

SarEl is correct. All 4 managers need to be put in the 'pot' and considered. The fact they are all doing the same job is actually the key to why this is being done the way it is - not an argument against.


If the company did not do this they would be at risk of being taken to tribunal for running an unfair process. especially given that you all work in the same local area.

Sorry but I doubt very much you have grounds for any sort of appeal / claim on the basis of the info in your post.

Moneysavingginge

Pete111 wrote: »

SarEl is correct. All 4 managers need to be put in the 'pot' and considered. The fact they are all doing the same job is actually the key to why this is being done the way it is - not an argument against.


If the company did not do this they would be at risk of being taken to tribunal for running an unfair process. especially given that you all work in the same local area.

Sorry but I doubt very much you have grounds for any sort of appeal / claim on the basis of the info in your post.

Thanks for the reply

What you have said is what I assumed. I only asked due to the fact that one of the managers in shop A used her 30mins free legal aid and she was told that the people in Shop B would stand a good chance in a tribunal for unfair dismissal

If it makes any difference when I say same area I mean about 10miles apart

Just for the record, This thread is on behave of someone, not me

zzzLazyDaisy

Just to say, one definition of redundancy, is closure of a workplace.

Therefore, in my view, if the employer chose to simply close that store and make those employees redundant, it would be difficult to argue that they had acted unfairly in dismissing those affected employees.

BUT

The decision to pool employees and select the workers to be made redundant by scoring them against a selection criteria, is equally valid (as long as the criteria and selection process is transparent and genuine)

(The problem with the 'free half hour legal aid' advice, is that employment law is a highly specialised field and you are unlikely to find a specialist emnployment solicitor in a high street legal aid practice, partly because there is no legal aid available for tribunal representation which means the solicitor is unlikely to cover their costs, and partly because it is impossible to ascertain all the facts and give comprehensive advice within a half hour slot.)

SarEl

I would agree with you, although I think that 10 miles apart would be a bit too close for comfort for an employer if an employee made redundant in the first scenario decided to challenge it. A greater distance between workplaces would be a better margin if going for this option.

But I wholeheartedly agree with the comment on legal advice - people need to beware. Even fully qualified and experienced employment specialists can easily argue angels on a pin head about the same situation and come up with three different answers. There is rarely such a thing as "obvious" because, especially in employment law, large parts of it are "interpreted" and does not follow strict rules. It's best to try to speak to a specialist whenever possible.

Pete111

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Just to say, one definition of redundancy, is closure of a workplace.

Therefore, in my view, if the employer chose to simply close that store and make those employees redundant, it would be difficult to argue that they had acted unfairly in dismissing those affected employees.

BUT

The decision to pool employees and select the workers to be made redundant by scoring them against a selection criteria, is equally valid (as long as the criteria and selection process is transparent and genuine)

(The problem with the 'free half hour legal aid' advice, is that employment law is a highly specialised field and you are unlikely to find a specialist emnployment solicitor in a high street legal aid practice, partly because there is no legal aid available for tribunal representation which means the solicitor is unlikely to cover their costs, and partly because it is impossible to ascertain all the facts and give comprehensive advice within a half hour slot.)

Agree with the above. The company is probably taking the 'least risk' option here and to be honest, I find it hard to believe a tribunal would find fault with the concept of putting all 4 Mgrs in the mix, even at 10 miles apart.

On the flip side however, if when closing shop A they felt at the outset that those managers there were the weaker, then they may well have gone with LD's 'option1' above to save the hassle. There will be little doubt they knew in advance who they wanted to keep afterall.

There is always the selection process top dispute of course - but this is usually tricky unless obvious mistakes have been made.

Moneysavingginge

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

My friend has just found out that there is another shop with-in the radius (give 3 miles) that isn't included in the selection. He has no idea why though and I dont think he is going to bring it up either.

Would that make it an unfair process you reckon??

zzzLazyDaisy

Sorry to be dense....

Do you mean the third shop is 3 miles away from the closing shop, or that it is 3 miles further away from the second shop (so 13 miles from the closing shop)?