Are they looking to terminate my employment or make me redundant?

Thamesview

I've worked for a company for the last 10 years and up until a year ago I was always kept informed of the company's strategic objectives so that my work could be aligned with their strategy. However, in the last year or so information has been withheld and I'm not able to meet my objectives in developing the committee I manage. I fear that my company is erring towards terminating my employment, or at best, looking to restructure to make me redundant.
Would I have a claim against unfair dismissal should it happen or if redundancy is compulsory, is there any action I can take?
Thank you in anticipation of your help and support.

clivejohnson

if theyre witholding information which effects your job, it sounds lore like constructive dismissal than unfair dismissal- thing is, you don't need me to tell you that you need proof.

CFC

I think you are a little confused.
If they are with-holding information and as a result you do not hit your objectives, and as a result disciplinary action is taken against you, or you feel your job is now impossible, you may possibly have a case.

If they are with-holding information for commercial or strategic reasons, or any other reasons on the face of the planet, and you are made redundant, you have no case. A company can easily make a role redundant to be honest, there is nothing to stop them. It is a question of whether the work is no longer needed, no longer being done, or whether the company is restructuring itself in such a way that your work is being done somewhere else.
In other words, if they decide that your job is not needed (which is not the same thing as YOU being not needed) they can go ahead and make your role redundant. The usual expectation is that redundancy is not voluntary.

mooks

My advice to you is the same as in the other forum (a word of advice - pick a forum to post in and stick with it - don't 'multi-post' across the site):

You don't say anything about your circumstances at your employer, so I'm assuming things are good and you have a good relationship with colleagues and management?

If this isn't the case, it would be an idea to start taking notes and raising concerns. Even if it is the case, I'd probably do the same - especially if you feel it's affecting your productivity.

In the year and a half before I was made redundant, my manager started excluding me from meetings, strategic plans, decisions and the like, and this prevented me from performing in the role. She was having meetings about my team and their work, but not filtering down decisions or actions to me, so I had no idea what was going on. I raised a grievance, and they refused to investigate. Less than a year later I was made redundant.

Mine is probably a worst case scenario, but it's far better to start collecting evidence or raising concerns as early as possible, so you have a strong body of evidence if things do turn sour further down the line. Of course it may turn out to have been an oversight or an honest mistake - but if you've been there for ten years and have had access to this information, and now you're not getting it, that does worry me. Were you advised of the change? Have you challenged the decision?

CFC

You can certainly raise it with your manager, but you cannot really challenge the decision. A grievance will only be relevant if you can demonstrate that the lack of information is having a negative impact on you that the company is not taking into account. For example, if you said to your manager - my team is not working efficiently because I do not have information Y, and the manager has simply acknowledged your comment but not challenged or questioned your team's performance, there is little likelihood of any outcome that will benefit you. Mooks, this was probably why your grievance was thrown out. In fact, putting in such a grievance could be held against you and lead to you being seen in a negative light- always be cautious about grievances.

In the same way Mooks, whether you had performed to standard or not is not relevant in terms of redundancies - the with-holding of info is not the cause of your redundancy, it is a sign that the company is taking a different route which may lead to redundancies but they do not want to give the game away too early.

Thamesview

Thank you for your words of advice and, yes, I note the advice about keeping to one forum!
I do have good relationships with the managers and it's only been within the past 2 years that information was withheld.
My main concern now, after reading other redundancy forum notices, is redeployment. If I'm made redundant, I consider that the better option (I have an insurance against redundancy which covers my mortgage for 12 months).
However, after reading other stories about redeployment, my concerns now err towards the truth in a company redeploying staff to a similar grade or indeed a lower grade role, which, it seems, they have to either accept or leave and the redundancy option is taken away from them. Is this true?
If my company chose to redeploy me to save money and I refused a lower grade job, would I have lose my redundancy package?
All I do know is, my company is looking to save money, they are making redundancies, they are redeploying and I think my role is next.
What is my options if they chose to go down the route of redeployment and offer me positions that only offer a lower rate of salary?

mooks

CFC wrote: »

If you said to your manager - my team is not working efficiently because I do not have information Y, and the manager has simply acknowledged your comment but not challenged or questioned your team's performance, there is little likelihood of any outcome that will benefit you.

Not wanting to hijack the thread with my own experiences, but this is one of many things that happened - my staff were redistributed, my responsibilities taken away, my access to information (like the above) removed - and then my manager started to discipline me as a result of poor performance (which considering I was doing the work of about 6 people with no extra support and with no access to information, was kind of inevitable). This is really why I was advising the OP to be cautious, as it can start off with some very small - and seemingly innocent - developments, but can snowball very quickly.

Thamesview wrote: »

Thank you for your words of advice and, yes, I note the advice about keeping to one forum!
I do have good relationships with the managers and it's only been within the past 2 years that information was withheld.
My main concern now, after reading other redundancy forum notices, is redeployment. If I'm made redundant, I consider that the better option (I have an insurance against redundancy which covers my mortgage for 12 months).
However, after reading other stories about redeployment, my concerns now err towards the truth in a company redeploying staff to a similar grade or indeed a lower grade role, which, it seems, they have to either accept or leave and the redundancy option is taken away from them. Is this true?
If my company chose to redeploy me to save money and I refused a lower grade job, would I have lose my redundancy package?
All I do know is, my company is looking to save money, they are making redundancies, they are redeploying and I think my role is next.
What is my options if they chose to go down the route of redeployment and offer me positions that only offer a lower rate of salary?

I'd always say that being employed in any form is better than being unemployed, even if it means taking a reduction in salary. While you have 12 months' cover on your mortgage, you can't guarantee that you'll find another job that pays at the level you're looking for.

Redeployment can be a good option - some employers offer a protected salary, so for a set time you receive your old salary so a drop in pay isn't as much of a shock, but that may only be in the public sector. Again - at least you'd have a job, which is more than many can hope for.

There is some truth in having a redundancy package taken away if you refuse alternative employment, but the employer has a responsibility to find 'suitable alternative employment'. That's to say, if you're working as the finance manager in a factory, they can't take away your right to statutory redundancy pay if they offer you a job on the shop floor and you refuse it.

When I was at risk of redundancy, the only jobs I was offered were clerical work, highly specialised work (i.e. professional qualifications needed) or as a cleaner - and I was a senior manager. I think my employer was actually banking on that fact...

This is a good, plain English resource...

jazzyman01

If your post is made redundant then the alternatives that the Company must offer you is a job of "equal value" or redundancy would apply. The issue would be them saying it is a job of equal value and you having to prove that it is not. However, if they are taking away some of your responsibilities now, this could play into their hands.

It is worrying how the current climate has so many people accept poor or downright illegal behaviour from their company.

If your post is redundant, and you do not want to remain at the Company then challenge everything that they offer you as job of equal value.

Even if you agree to trial a job that is lower, you have the right to reject it and retain your redundancy payment if it is not working for you.

It is mainly the public sector that protect salary. Private sector will keep your current salary at present levels for the trial period and then knock it down to the rate for the job immediately it is completed and you are retained in the post.

Thamesview

This is interesting, thank you. A couple of things come to mind; being able to trial a role that is offered at a lower grade and retain redundancy if it doesn't work out and an option for a protected salary, perhaps. Although I have not had any official notification of the future of my role, it is looking likely that I will either be redeployed or made redundant or, even, put on reduced hours within the same role. One of my direct reports was seconded to another project, then redeployed - my own line manager let it slip that my direct report was 'ring-fenced' - taken out of her secondment and redeployed to a higher grade, but HR will not admit this. Then, to cap it all, my other direct report was put on a 2.5 day week but left as it wasn't financially viable. I now have no assistance, a lack of information and told that I now have to cover all roles and still expect either redeployment or redundancy sometime this year! I suppose what I really need to understand, and I am trying, is what my rights are and what I can reasonably expect. I do believe HR will not make mistakes as another employee is taking the organisation to court right now for unfair dismissal.

mooks

My advice then, is to be careful, and to start collecting evidence.

If you haven't raised it already, raise your concerns formally with your manager - the removal of your direct report, the impact their absence is having on your ability to deliver work of an acceptable standard and your concerns about the impact that being excluded from this information is having on your work.

It's reasonable to expect that your manager will adjust your workload if you lose a member of staff and are expected to take on their responsibilities, while it's also going to be more difficult to deliver work of a high standard if you don't have a full understanding of the corporate landscape. I'm not saying to start raising grievances, but the worst thing to happen is to get further down the line to find maybe you do have a case for ET, only for your case to be weakened by your boss standing up and saying 'but they never raised this before'. When it comes down to it, if they do want to get rid of you, they'll do it anyway, so ask questions now and get/put things in writing if needs be. For the moment, such behaviour can be explained as you simply being conscientious.

And don't think HR won't make mistakes - or put more accurately, "mistakes". They work for the managers after all...

I hope I'm not creating unnecessary panic, but it's simply better to be prepared in such circumstances.

Thamesview

It will be my first full week without assistance next week and, my line manager decided to take 2 weeks leave so I shall be running the department on my own. I would like to keep this thread open as you have all been very helpful. I shall post again at the end of next week to let you know if things have progressed or regressed!