alternative job offer - though not actually been offered redundancy!?

Sloganjerry

This is exactly what happened in my company. People were put at risk of redundancy (in writing) and told to apply for alternative jobs in the ‘pool’. I was lucky in as far as I was sensible enough not to put anything in writing that would suggest I was ‘applying’ for any role. I just said I was happy to continue in meaningful consultation and consider any alternative roles offered to me. Then I turned down offers as unsuitable and am now going forward for redundancy hearing. At no point have I been officially given notice of redundancy up to this point. I am looking forward to hopefully getting that notice in my hand very soon. Interesting to hear what is being said and I agree with getmore4less is saying. It seems that a lot of employers are using the ignorance of their employees to push changes through without argument or hassle and without following the proper procedures.

Just wanted to add, after reading through Ops original posts, that I was actually offered a 4 week trial as part of alternative offers, without formal redundancy notice realting to previous position. Also I know of one colleague who has completed 4 week trial and is now rejecting role as unsuitable. They are having a hearing shortly and will be formally given notice of redundancy then.

SarEl

getmore4less wrote: »

Thanks, interesting.

I think this clarifies something for me on timings that I had not appreciated before.

Wait for notice before getting involved in alternaive rolls unless you realy want one of them. Or - get everything in writing! But you are right. As I said, "at risk" means little more than "engaged to be married" - the event may not take place! So if you are thinking about another job in an at risk period, it's exactly the same in terms of rights as if no at risk period existed. So if you want to be assured of the terms of the job, you do what you would do in any other situation (if you are sensible) and get it is writing.

Seems a lot of employers try to get people to apply/accept position prior to or during consultation when they use the all jobs have changed apply for the jobs approach to redundancies. To be fair, many employers try to reduce the uncertainty by getting on with what they can - so by getting people into roles that will secure them if such roles exist. Not all employers are liars!

What they should do(from an employee perspective that is not 100% happy with the jobs on offer) is say all jobs have gone issue redundacy notices and then offer the positions or ask people to apply. Yes. Personally I would slightly change the law, to allow for a formal "at risk period guaranteeing certain basic rights whether or not the outcome is redundancy for any individual. Certainly, I think suitable alternative employments could be covered, with rights to trial periods. It wouldn't give people the right to be made redundant, nor mean that they would be, but it would give some clarity to people about where they stand in this period.


What is the legal term for the time between being told you may be made redudant and actualy getting notice of terminantion where this period is required in law?

Technically there isn't one - "at risk" does the job. The problem is that this period doesn't have any defining features that separates it from "not at risk" - given that there is no such thing as a job for life, you could argue that the only real difference is that some people know they may be made redundant, and others don't! To use my marriage analogy - you are single, and will (possibly, presumably, maybe) get married. So you are engaged. But you are also still single - that has not changed and won't until you actually marry! So you have a job. When at risk you still have a job, and you have not been told that you haven't got one. You don't get to be redundant until the notice is served.

SarEl

Sloganjerry wrote: »

It seems that a lot of employers are using the ignorance of their employees to push changes through without argument or hassle and without following the proper procedures. I couldn't agree more, and no it isn't "fair". But I'd have to say that I equally deplore the fact that fewer and fewer employees know their basic rights (and I am not expecting them to have a law degree - just know some very basic stuff that is freely available on line and many other places), and are not members of unions (so that you don't have to know your rights - hopefully - as they will know them for you!). Over the last 20 years or so I have noticed a trend amongst employees that seems to be almost "surprised" that employers don't have their best interests at heart, will lie to them; and that they (the employees) are amazed when this happens - like they are not playing fair.


Just wanted to add, after reading through Ops original posts, that I was actually offered a 4 week trial as part of alternative offers, without formal redundancy notice realting to previous position. Also I know of one colleague who has completed 4 week trial and is now rejecting role as unsuitable. They are having a hearing shortly and will be formally given notice of redundancy then.

Yes, - an employer may do this - and many do. They can improve on what the law says. And many do. But the problem here is that they don't have to - and some don't!

wkp

Just an update - thank you all for your help and interest. I have since this post began, raised a grievance against my employers - which was not upheld, then appealed their decision and the Company has now reviewed their position between them and me and has offered me a 4-week trial, very attractive hours, with a final meeting on the cards at the end of the 4-week trial to ensure that i suit the company's needs and those of mine in the alternative role i will have trialed.
So all the hassle would appear to have been worth it!

LadyMissA

isplumm wrote: »

Hi,

What evidence do you have that redunacy was an option - I would look at the direct gov website - also contact union if you have one ... i don't think they can do what they are doing ...

Remember that if you took redunacy it will not be very much ... 6 weeks @ 6 years (if over 45 will be more) - check the above website for more info.

Mark

No its over the age of 41 you get 1.5 weeks money for each year over 2 years in total with the same company

SarEl

wkp wrote: »

Just an update - thank you all for your help and interest. I have since this post began, raised a grievance against my employers - which was not upheld, then appealed their decision and the Company has now reviewed their position between them and me and has offered me a 4-week trial, very attractive hours, with a final meeting on the cards at the end of the 4-week trial to ensure that i suit the company's needs and those of mine in the alternative role i will have trialed.
So all the hassle would appear to have been worth it!

That is very good news. And it shows that grievance procedures can sometimes work! I suppose that it has also had the spin off benefit of making you more likely to make sure of your position before you commit to things - knowing your employment rights is not an optional extra these days.