dirty, murky world of redundancy reasons

spiritus

We have recently been advised that we're on a 30 day consultation period.

Redundancy is on the cards for the whole department as the company look to centralise it's function to a city 44 miles away.

We've been told there are jobs for us if anyone's willing to commute that far but otherwise we're looking at being made redundant.

My question is this:-

We were told that if none of us accept the transfer then the company would be forced to recruit new staff to replace us. Isn't the essence of a redunandcy that the company no longer has need for a particular position i.e. meaning it's redundant.

By employing staff to replace us surely negates the need for redundancy ?

My other question is that although I appreciate the company will then say to us that they offered us the job but we turned it down isn't this a case of Hobson's Choice as not many people would perform an 88 mile round trip for a salary not far above the minimum wage ?

Isn't this beyond the definition of "reasonable travelling distance" ?

There is an office only 14 miles away which could accommodate us easily, in fact, other departments in the building have already been transferred to this closer site. Does the company have a case to answer as to why they're transferring our department to a place that's so far away it would trigger redundancies rather than transfer us to a place only 14 miles away ?

getmore4less

Ok the redundancy is probably genuine, job location is part of the job which may include reasonable mobility clauses.

The jobs at the current location will no longer exist so this is an automatic potential redundancy.

Consultation is the time you(as a group) get to negotiate a solution, do you have reps yet?

If you can't justify keeping the office/department open then what are the potential suitable allternatives.

They have started with an offer 44 miles away

You think there is a better option 14, so consult.

It may be that not enough would do 14m, and it is easier/cheaper to recruit at 44m, there may be good reason your department is a better fit at the 44m place etc.

You need to hear the arguments and offer counter proposals that are better for the business. ie: consult.


The obvious staring point is relocation and support packages for those that would relocate/commute.


Remember 14/44 are not the distances evey one will be changing to unless you all live in the office or very close, some(boss usualy) could end up with shorter trips if they commute allready.


Isn't this beyond the definition of "reasonable travelling distance" ?

So you agree the potential alternative employment is not suitable, so redundant.

CFC

spiritus wrote: »

We have recently been advised that we're on a 30 day consultation period.

Redundancy is on the cards for the whole department as the company look to centralise it's function to a city 44 miles away.

We've been told there are jobs for us if anyone's willing to commute that far but otherwise we're looking at being made redundant.

My question is this:-

We were told that if none of us accept the transfer then the company would be forced to recruit new staff to replace us. Isn't the essence of a redunandcy that the company no longer has need for a particular position i.e. meaning it's redundant.

By employing staff to replace us surely negates the need for redundancy ?

The reason there would be redundancies is because the current workers refuse to commute or move and that is reasonable. This site move will fall under reorganisation and that is also a legitimate reason for redundancy.

My other question is that although I appreciate the company will then say to us that they offered us the job but we turned it down isn't this a case of Hobson's Choice as not many people would perform an 88 mile round trip for a salary not far above the minimum wage ?

Indeed so, it may not suit any or many of you, but you have had the offer.

Isn't this beyond the definition of "reasonable travelling distance" ?

Indeed, this is why you are being offered redundancy if you do not wish to work on the new site.

There is an office only 14 miles away which could accommodate us easily, in fact, other departments in the building have already been transferred to this closer site. Does the company have a case to answer as to why they're transferring our department to a place that's so far away it would trigger redundancies rather than transfer us to a place only 14 miles away ?

No, however this is a question you should raise in your consultation meetings as a suggestion as to how redundancies could potentially be avoided - but it is unlikely that the business has not considered this before rejecting it.

Always sorry to hear of redundancies

Nassy

Hi

My understanding is that a company can make redundancies for all sorts of reasons and even if these reasons do seem unreasonable to an employee, if they are clearly part of that business's strategy then there is very little that can be done. I am contesting a redundancy myself and understand full well as a result that tribunals do not look at whether a redundancy is fair or even how the employer has behaved overall (unless in the context of a legal breach) - they simply look at whether a law was broken and whether the outcome of what happened changed as a result :eek:

Based on the little I have learnt, Redundancy law in the UK is quite limited in its scope. A qualified lawyer can correct on this, but I believe that a redundancy can only really be seen as an "unfair dismissal" if there are issues with the consultation/ selection process *or* if the reason for the redundancy was a specific type of discimination (sex, maternity, race, disability etc) or due to protected disclosure. ACAS website lists the reasons in more detail.

Even if you have 2 sets of people doing the same role but at different locations, my understanding is that it is possible to make 1 group redundant on this basis. In your case it simply sounds like they are wanting to relocate 1 set of people, but offering redundancy as a "get out clause". Providing they hold the consultation process in a fair manner, there is possibly little that can be done about this.

At the moment I think all you can do, is play the game and consult by putting across convincing arguments on why you should be able to locate to a nearer office. Also *If* they then make major slip ups in the consultation process then the door could still be open for a possible appeal.

Sorry to hear about your situation though and best of luck with the consultation. :cool: