Redundancy - unfair?

justagirl_2

Hi All,

I would really appreciate any advice anyone has to offer.

This week, I was given notice of redundancy, a business case for change (in restructuring my department) and the new role profile replacing my role.

In essence, I have been told that the biggest reasons for my role being 'deleted' are that (a) they would be moving a monthly newsletter I edit from being printed to going online and 'perhaps' reducing the frequency. (b) there will no longer be a requirement of substantial editing of website and intranet content as responsibility of content would be increasingly devolved.

They have redrawn up the post at an 'administrator level' with a £10k paycut. However, looking at the new profile, it is essentially exactly the same job I have been doing for two and a half years. Rather than saying 'lead' on any of the tasks listed, it now says 'assist' with these tasks.

I genuinely believe it will be the same job as I am doing now, regardless of the business case, because they are not really changing the requirements of my department at all. They are basically trying to pay someone else £10k less to do the same role, to save money in the directorate.

I have a one to one consultation to discuss the redundancy and right to apply for the new role.

What do people advice I do next, as I don't believe they are acting fairly.

Thanks in advance for any help

getmore4less

Consultation is whwn you make your case and question the justifcations.

Seems the key is to identify who will be taking over all the lead rolls the new position will now be assisting.

If this is substantialy the same persion there may be a case for pooling them with you for redundacy.

IME if those that provided the content for the printed mag needed their material editing the same will be true for the web based content.

justagirl_2

Thanks for your reply getmore4less

The department is made up of the head of marketing, marketing administrator (21 hours), me (marketing exec) and a special projects marketing officer (whose tasks are completely different and wont change).

They have given the p/t administrator the same job spec as me but just added that it is 21 hours. She is questioning it, but the head has told her not to worry as she will be doing mainly what she has always done, but she won't accept it until they write a specific one for her with her old tasks - mainly events, which aren't even on this new profile.

IMO the role replacing mine will still look after all the old tasks because the head is tied up with her old work schedule, same as usual.

you are right, the content still needs the same process regardless of being online or print. The business case is very flimsy and i think they have just assigned the same role profile to me and the p/t person to make it look as though we are sharing the tasks, but in reality it will be the same as usual.

I am the only one being pooled.

I was advised by someone else to go to the consultation and question the justifications, as you have suggested. If I then don't get an adequate answer or reasonable justification, then what should I say or do?

Say that I believe they are in breach of contract? say that I will go to an employment tribunal to contest this? take the job in protest and still sue for shortfall in earnings for doing the same job?

thanks for any help

getmore4less

Whats the going rate for this kind of job.
But if overpaid they can replace and save over time.

If you want to fight you need to try to justify that the job is the same and worth what you are paid

If the pay is the going rate it will just cost them if you leave and take the redundancy so calling the buff might be an option.

Another thought did the move to the web come first or second.

Who is driving this move from printed to web if no one it will end up in a mess so question this, perhaps trying to make this your baby is a way to keep the status.

Consultation is about ngotiation and sometimes looking for positives and being constructive first is the better approach so find out the motivation behind the changes and look for ways to mitigate those. They want change so go with that first, whith the fallback the job has not changed

When that fails be more confrontational about the job being the same

justagirl_2

The new job role is quite extensive:

- assisting with implementing PR and Marketing campaigns
- lead on producing e-newsletters for internal and external audiences
- assist with monitoring media and disseminating info to staff
- assist with PR campaigns - drafting press releases and searching for news stories to support marketing objectives
-assist with developing marketing materials (proofing, editing, design and copy writing
- oversee organisations social media presence
-assisting with filming and photography
- ensure intranet and web is regularly reviewed and updated
- coordinate staff bulletins
- work as part of a team to organise events, conferences, seminars

and it goes on....

all say "assist the Head of Marketing' to do this now, but this was what I did before anyway.

They are proposing a drop from grade 5 (28.5 - 32.5k bracket), to grade 3 (19 -22.5k bracket). exc. london weighting. Definitely not going rate for the job.

They have given the p/t admin the same profile, who has basic experience of general admin and event planning (no marketing qualifications)

However the role profile states that it requires a marketing qualification and letter, report and newsletter writing skills.

She doesn't want to accept this new list, altho the Head is insisting it doesn't matter because she will do her old tasks mainly and perhaps help update website occasionally.

None of it adds up and it basically seems a cost cutting exercise.

Ironically, I suggested the move to online, as we were asked by the Head to think of ways to cut costs. we also suggested doing less events but were told this was a no-goer.

They were basically asked to cut the budget by 10% somehow and that's why my role is being deleted. They are saying that it is because of a new direction in the department. However it isn't really.

In a way they are telling me one thing, and the administrator something different.

I am not going to go in all guns blazing as such, but just wondered how I leave the ball in their court after the consultation, as i suspect their justification wont be much of one at all.

getmore4less

Is the admin on G3 or lower, if lower they have to make noises about more pay.

Bottom line is some how there needs to be cuts and if this job is genuinly worth more than they are trying to pay who comes of worse if you leave and they can't recrute new blood.

These are the people you need to convince they will be in the do do if this goes through so they are on your side. I guess it will be the admin but if they can't do the job what stops getting done and who suffers.

Who do you provide services for outside the marketing team how will they be effected if things change and stuff stops getting done.

I think the key is demonstrating the cuurent proposal won't work hinting that you won't be doing the job without saying point blank you will take the redundancy.

justagirl_2

Yes, the admin should definitely ask for more pay to do these extra tasks. although as she is only doing 21 hours she physically can't do more than she is already doing now.

I am taking her in with me for the one to one, just so she knows what they are saying to me about how her role will change to accommodate the new structure. I imagine she won't be happy as they will have to contradict what the head has told her in private.

to be honest, I am unhappy with what they are offering me as a redundancy - 2 weeks pay lump sum and 4 weeks notice. That is the main reason, I am contesting it.

If they want me to go, I want to make sure they pay me properly for going.

That is why, I am, if necessary, prepared to take it a lot further. I will tell them that their proposals are unworkable and unjustified, given the work that still needs to be done and isn't changing at all. I want to highlight that it is clear from their paperwork that the only thing changing is the grade and the pay - therefore the job isn't 'redundant'.

I just want to know how to say that reasonably using the right terminology.

Thanks a lot

getmore4less

If you have been there between 2 and 3 years then that's the correct redundancy unless you have terms for more.

The redundancy can be capped at £400pw.

justagirl_2

Yeah, I know it's the minimum they have to give me by law. It's the way they've gone about it that gets me.

The HR Director sat there with our department 3 weeks previously and said (unprompted) that there was possibly going to be a restructure but that it was more to clarify our roles and that we wouldn't need to worry about it at all, as it wouldn't affect us at all.

why say anything at all? She then told another colleague they had been planning it for months. They made me go through a 3 and a half hour appraisal just weeks ago and appeal for a payrise I was rightly due, just because they changed the rules 9 months into the financial year.

I also went through my workplan for the year in which we discussed how busy we were going to be and that there'd be "a lot more to do". All of those things are in this new role profile.

I basically think it was a last minute decision where they were told to slash more than they already had. They didn't even have the profiles ready for us, nor can they answer any questions as to how it will affect day to day work, as they "haven't really had a chance to discuss it yet".

I'm happy to go, to be honest, but the fact they are trying to get away with essentially paying someone else to do exactly the same thing for less, means that it isn't really a redundancy, but a cost cutting exercise.

I think if they'd just given me a few months notice and a month's pay for every year, I'd have ignored the whole thing and went, but it's more about the principal of the issue now and how cut throat they are being.

Mischa8

Basically, you work in government and this will be the one of many job cuts coming government's way.

I predict a lot of people will be in the same boat as you.

Of course, to save money they'll ask the administrator to take on some of your tasks or amalgamate them and raise her salary/grade accordingly. Think if you were in the managers' shoes, they *need* to save money.

You *could* reapply for this new role or you *could* take them to a tribunal. The worst thing for you to do (and it does seem like it a bit) is come across as stroppy and wanting your job kept and stamping your foot now it's being made redundant.

You never know what could happen (I've temped at top level PA range in government for 2 years, now permanent in a private company) if you actually go along with what they say and be understanding about it, who knows they could recommend you for another post or suggest another one is created for you? I've had people in government go out of their way to find extra temping work for me, get me contract jobs and help me, because I worked hard and was obviously employable.

Regardless, £10K needs to be saved. Your job duties being cut seem to be part of this. There's nothing illegal going on here. Like you say, you could reapply for your role and accept £10K less but you don't want to do that.

Have you looked at the government internal/external jobs website (I forget the name) to see about any similar roles?

The final thing I would say, what do HR say? I know government have a big and well-staffed HR department?

I'm not trying to be unfair here, but I worked in private companies for many years before temping for 2 years in central government. Believe me, lots of private sector workers don't get the same explanations as you've got, nor the chance of a decent HR dept to fight their case. So best of luck whatever you do. Redundancy however they are wording it is never nice.

justagirl_2

I think perhaps you have the wrong end of the stick about a few things. I don't work in government, it's a charity. One that has been in surplus for the last 4 years and chose to give 650+ employees a 2% salary uplift this year.

The administrator isn't getting any change in grade or salary at all. She is being asked to do moreorless the same thing.

My role has been re-graded to hers, the name and salary have been lowered but all of the role still exists in it's old form. It has been plain to anyone I have shown it to.

Far from being stroppy, I simply want to go into the consultation knowing what I can expect from it, what I need to ask, and what the next steps should be should I not be satisfied with their justification for a change.

I know redundancy is all too common and rubbish for anyone. All I am simply pointing out is that I don't believe my role is truly being made redundant in the true sense of the word.

I'm very happy to leave, as the environment is unpleasant, to put it mildly. I just question how they have gone about it and I, along with others I have spoken to, see it as not quite a cut and dry redundancy case.

I don't want my job kept at all. As I said before, if they had given me a couple of months extra notice as they were in the position to do so and not gone out of their way to mislead me into thinking the job was safe, I'd turn a blind eye to all of this stiff and walk away.