Girlfriend's redundancy warning, advice?

Manchester2012

Hi,

Never been on here for employment related advice before, but my girlfriends come home tonight all upset because shes had a letter warning that her role may be made redundant. She has got a meeting on thursday, and has to prove that her role is worth keeping.

Now im not up on the law of employee rights or anything, but what i have heard in the past is, that an employer cannot make you redundant, then employ someone else to do the same job.

She works as a purchase ledger clerk, within the accounts department of around 4 other people. She is the only one who has been given this warning. She does her role alone, and tells me that it isn't physically possible for the company to just not have a purchase ledger. So, the only thing they could do is split her work over the other 3 people as well as their own work. She wasn't the last one in the department, and is able to do the jobs of the other 3 people too, but says she isn't the bosses favorite and the others are better friends with the boss etc. They've told the other 3 in the department that the rest of them are safe. Even though one of them is less qualified than my girlfriend.

What sort of things should she be stating in the meeting on thursday? What should she be asking? Shes told me in the past when they decide to get rid of somebody they just seem to get away with it and nothing gets asked. I want her to go in eyes wide open and be able to ask all the proper questions, because by the sounds of it other people they have got rid of in the past have just nodded there head and said ok. Im going to make sure she at least fights it though.

Thanks, any advice appreciated.

Manchester2012

Its also on my mind and a bit frustrating, that today when she found out, the managing director called her into his office without her manager there. Should her manager have been present?

If there are 4 roles being cut into 3, should she be able to be considered for one of them? Her role will be split into the other 3 roles, as it HAS to be done, and she can and has done the other roles.

They've also told her she is not allowed to tell anyone about it, and that they know she will handle it professionally without fuss. (I interpreted that as please walk out with your tail between your legs and dont ask any questions, because she is generally a quiet girl)

WestonDave

On the face of it at this stage it would look as though they need to at the very least explain convincingly why there isn't a pool of 4 being considered for redundancy on particular criteria. That said even if they did that its not that hard to rig the criteria so things she is weaker on score relatively highly and she will end up going anyway. Its down to the employer to set the criteria that are important (within reason - having blonde hair would not be a reasonable criteria, but maybe being a good team player might be at which point her lack of friendship might count against her) so they have a fair amount of scope.

At this stage its often a case of giving them enough rope to hang themselves later - there are various things they have to do (the directgov website its pretty good on this) and in a few cases if they don't it almost automatically becomes unfair dismissal. The other thing to bear in mind is that if this is the way they want to play it, its not going to be a pleasant place to stay at work at, so hypothetically if their solution is to offer a very good package and a good reference, you need to think very carefully before throwing that away just to fight your corner.

getmore4less

Manchester2012 wrote: »

Its also on my mind and a bit frustrating, that today when she found out, the managing director called her into his office without her manager there. Should her manager have been present?

If there are 4 roles being cut into 3, should she be able to be considered for one of them? Her role will be split into the other 3 roles, as it HAS to be done, and she can and has done the other roles.

They've also told her she is not allowed to tell anyone about it, and that they know she will handle it professionally without fuss. (I interpreted that as please walk out with your tail between your legs and dont ask any questions, because she is generally a quiet girl)

How long has she worked there?


She needs to ask how she can exercise her legal rights without telling people.
One right is to take a companion to meetings.

Also raise the issue of pooling workers but as has been pointed out it may not help if they are smart with criteria

How does the work get done when she is on holiday or sick?

If it doesn't, can she identify failures in the others, that might be an angle especialy if she can show she has to pick up the pieces and the bos covers up for the others

Any holiday she could take to prove the point, offer to take the holiday and let them decide if they need her in 2 weeks time.

Also accept that the reality might be they can do without her, she does not fit in and/or is not that good at the job.

Manchester2012

Thanks for the replies, some good points there, shes basically asked me to help her prepare some questions for her meeting, so that will all come in useful. If they offer her anywhere near a decent amount of money she would probably dance her way out of the office, so we'll just have to wait and see. I just have a feeling that because she wouldn't really say boo to a goose, they think oh this will be an easy one to get rid of, if you get my drift. Shes been there 3 years, always seemed to do well, never had a day off sick in that time, whereas all the other 3 have had numerous absences. I know it cant be said or used as info, but apparantly the manager 'fancies the !!! of one of the other girls' so she was never going to be an option to leave.

The point about them coping when she is not there is a good one though and will tell her to include that in her list of questions. She had a week off and came on holiday with me, she had at least 3 phone calls on seperate days helping one of the girls telling them how to do tasks. Which she should probably tell them.

Because she deals with money, she knows that they have 'paid off' a few of the managers etc over the last year with sums of 35k as she saw the money going, but there managers, probably on 40 grand a year, compared to a purchase ledger clerk on 17k.

They have told her today we will help you find a new job, help you do a CV, will contact people who might have a job for you, it was the hardest decision etc etc so it sounds to me like they have already made there mind up.

By the way, should she mention anything about last in first out? Or is that just a myth really? She wasn't the last one to start out of the 4 either. And the last one in is the least qualified too.

Thanks

Bigmoney2

Manchester2012 wrote: »

By the way, should she mention anything about last in first out? Or is that just a myth really? She wasn't the last one to start out of the 4 either. And the last one in is the least qualified too.

Thanks

Last in first out can't be used on its own. Length of service could be one of a number of criteria used as selection for redundancy, such as qualifications, absence record, etc.

Maybe her questions could be:-
What is the selection criteria.
Also have they asked for volunteers?
What are the redundancy terms?
How many people are they looking to loose.
What departments are effected.
Have they looked at measures to mitigate job losses e.g. reducing hours, job shareing.



I assume she isn't in a union as this would be her first port of call.

EconomicsGirl

I'ld give ACAS a call and ask for their advice - its free. There is a procedure that needs to be followed when making redundancies. Does sound like they've made their mind up. Hope she can get it sorted.

getmore4less

Could be a catch 22 here if they actualy have lots of contacts with other potential employers.

even though pre determined not following process could have a good case it might be a bad stratagy if they want her out anyway.

If she kicks off a fight then they may become less supportive and the end result could still be job loos and word get round other local companies we have a trouble maker.

BEtter to try and pesuade that she is the one to keep, if the boss has been a bit underhand talking to their boss might be an option to find out why you what were the criteria for choosing who to go.
It is not uncomon for there to be manipulation by those with vested interest to the detriment of the company, identifying the players and decision makers is important.

Contructive discusions of why is there is a need to cutback, and how to fix that if you think you can, the other process points raised already, alternative options etc.

In the background trying to be suportive with handovers/training etc. to get longer notice, larger payout, PILON and time to find other work.

lots of angles

Curve ball, totaly inapropriate and very dirty trick any of the other girls planning a baby?

unholyangel

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Last in first out can't be used on its own. Length of service could be one of a number of criteria used as selection for redundancy, such as qualifications, absence record, etc.

Maybe her questions could be:-
What is the selection criteria.
Also have they asked for volunteers?
What are the redundancy terms?
How many people are they looking to loose.
What departments are effected.
Have they looked at measures to mitigate job losses e.g. reducing hours, job shareing.



I assume she isn't in a union as this would be her first port of call.

Agreed. Using last in first out can amount to indirect discrimination.

I would also ask why they are making redundancies. If it is a pure money saving exercise, it will enable her to lead on to ask what other options they have considered that would mean no one person/s suffer a substantial loss (as above reduction in hours, no overtime, loss of perks/benefits).

Those being made redundant have legal rights:

to be consulted in advance, in order to discuss alternatives (ie before there is a fixed plan to make redundancies, to be invited to discuss the situation and explore alternatives)
to be given reasons for the redundancy
to be selected according to an objectively fair process, if more than one person is affected by the change and to know the basis of the selection system
to try out any alternative offer of suitable work for 4 weeks
to take reasonable time off, with pay, to look for alternative work or training.

FBaby

The thing is, although she might be able to do the other's jobs, she is not in that current position. Experience might be irrelevant, current job description might be the key factor. If the job the others are doing 100% currently, becomes say 65%, with the 1/3rd of your partner's role becoming 35% (or so!), then they can claim that the criteria for a person to be given the job without being pooled would need to currently fulfilled 50% or above of the new position. That would mean that the three meet the criteria whereas your partner doesn't.

Just playing devils advocate to help her prepare for anything they might say.

getmore4less

to take reasonable time off, with pay, to look for alternative work or training

paid is limited to 2/5 of a week total.