Constructive Dismissal Claim?

sudohnim

7 months ago my H was head-hunted into a position in 3rd party contract management. He is (was) the contract manager.

However in the intervening 7 months the parent supplier has been bought (taken over outright in cash) by another corporation. This has allowed the 3rd party customer to review the contract arrangements - was part of the original contract agreement. The customer have told my H's manager that savings of £200K are required on the contract for it to remain viable.

Yesterday my H was called to a meeting and told that the contract team would be undergoing some changes and his position is no longer viable and so he is now under redundancy consultation.

Some background info is that all of the parent (supplier) company line of management above my H have been dismissed (made redundant) in the take over. My H's new manager was promoted above his level from a level below him - he personally wasn't bothered about this but a number of other of his peers are. His problem is, they have given him a letter saying his post is disappearing but he has his same equivalent in another part of the country which is not disappearing - so it doesn't ring true that the role isn't needed. In addition to this, my H doesn't brown-nose the new boss... which apparently didn't go down well. Example: he was informed he had to keep his work phone on 24/7 and do a week on-week off on call all the time 24/7. I explained to him that wasn't legal under the working time directive. He had a discussion with his boss who he voiced those concerns to - as he is responsible for a number of people this kind of service would be expected from and he felt that they would be exploited.

Next thing he's called to the meeting yesterday and under redundancy consultation. He has a feeling it isn't kosher and we're wondering whether this is in fact constructive dismissal - it just feels wrong. Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't want to continue working where he knows he isn't wanted but he is in quite a senior position and a number of his guys working for him are now very worried about the same happening to them. It seems if your face doesn't fit... you go. Can they do this...?

SarEl

The answer is yes. He has 7 months employment and can be dismissed for any reason including walking on the grass on a Tuesday - you have no right to claim unfair dismissal until a year (shortly to be two years courtesy of the Coalition). Sorry. And actually being on call does not contravene the WTD either. On call is not classed as working unless you are actually called out and then the actual working time only must be counted as part of the working week.

sudohnim

Sorry didn't make my initial posting clear - the 7 months is a new position within the same company. He hasn't actually changed employer. Does that make a difference...? (We're talking 20 years employment).

Thanks re: on-call.

SarEl

Not on the face of it - the only difference is that they must follow the law on redundancy. But if the employer says that the post is being made redundant - well, that's certainly a redundancy. Obviously if it isn't and someone else is given the post that would be unfair dismissal. But their reasons for redundancy don't have to "ring true" I am afraid - they just have to abide by the law in making the redundancy.

sudohnim

Thanks very much for your help SarEl. Been a huge help, thank you

SarEl

sudohnim wrote: »

Thanks very much for your help SarEl. Been a huge help, thank you

I doubt that! Helpful would have been able to say it wasn't right! Just keep an eye on things to see that they do everything by the book. That's the best I can do for you right now.

sudohnim

SarEl wrote: »

I doubt that! Helpful would have been able to say it wasn't right! Just keep an eye on things to see that they do everything by the book. That's the best I can do for you right now.

No really it was helpful because half of the problem around these processes is the uncertainty. I think from my H's point of view his feeling is if it's not about his performance (& they have said it isn't) then why is the other post still viable, when they have clearly stated that role isn't required. I think I mixed my dismissals up (I was thinking unfair rather than constructive as he hasn't had to resign, my mistake). I think this is a question he needs to ask and they need to answer because in their publication of the changes to the rest of the team, they have said only one role is going (H's).

I would have thought for two people doing the jobs that both jobs would be at risk & they would both have to apply for the role left. The problem is that the customer service is being centralised to the other location & so it wouldn't make sense to make that person redundant but that does feel a little unfair to H... but may well still be legal.

So, as I said, thank you again for at least some clarity to help us order our thinking. Obviously he's taken it quite well at the moment & has said he doesn't want to stay where he's not wanted.

SarEl

They are no doubt treating the other job as being in a different establishment - as it may in fact be if it is located elsewhere. Google the term in connection with redundancy and you will find a lot of information, although I doubt it will cure your confusion as there is no strict legal definition.

sudohnim

SarEl wrote: »

They are no doubt treating the other job as being in a different establishment - as it may in fact be if it is located elsewhere. Google the term in connection with redundancy and you will find a lot of information, although I doubt it will cure your confusion as there is no strict legal definition.

Yes, I think that is what they are doing. Like I said it feels unfair... but then redundancy rarely feels fair does it. Also, being the more unaffected of the two of us right now, I think some of his difficulty with it centres around the dealing with losing a job & all that entails. But he's experienced & will find any job to start with. He's not precious about that

sudohnim

Hello again
Just thought I'd do an update. H was asked to attend the next meeting but is unable to take representation due to such short timescale. Instead he produced some discussion notes and now they are considering a compromise agreement. We will look at what they come up with, get legal advice and then decide. Also things moved on a little. H heard from a contact that the company had already announced his departure... before even consulting with him on it. Not nice. Makes it kinda hard for him to go back now.
Ho hum. I think it's sinking in for him now and I feel a bit sorry for him as he's been there a very long time.
'nim

SarEl

Men are often less well adapted to deal with change - that is why retirment kills so many of them off quickly! Seriously. Scientifc fact. So yes, after such a long time it will be a shock. Try to make him keep to a routine - no lie in's he didn't get before, keeping busy, setting projects (like applying for jobs between 9 and 12, and doing something off the "yes, darling, I will do that next weekend" list after lunch etc. Keeping up activity and routine is a good way of coping and getting back into work quickly. And clears the backlog of things he was going to do at the weekend!