is this redundancy or unfair dissmissal?

thedriver

The company i work for as placed our dept. on consultation 3weeks ago.

They have said the work our dept does is being transferred,some to another office and some transferred to another dept in our office. They are also making some of this dept redundant as well.

Originally the other dept just did travel, and no one in that dept has any experience of event management. Their job descriptions will have to change to incorp the new role.

I can accept that our dept will be made smaller, my question is it seems that my role isnt redundant, but being given as a new position in another dept. Which i am not allowed to apply for and the travel dept role is the one which is infact redundant.

If anyone has any advice, then please post, please note that we are not in a union and the view we have is let the redundancy notices happen and then claim that this was an unfair dismissal as my job still exists, but transferred to another with a unique job title so that he could be excluded from the selection process, his new role will be my current position, which i cant apply for.

Any help or advice appreaciated. Tia.

SarEl

I am not clear how you have concluded your job still exists - as I read this the work still exists but has been incorparted into another role which is undertaken by an existing member of staff. That is a redudancy, not an unfair dismissal.

thedriver

The reason it still exist is i do both roles, travel and events, the other person does just travel. They are changing that role so that it is travel and events, my job in effect. If they are chabging the job spec then this must be a new position and as such shouldnt i be allowed to apply for that role, and both me and the travel pdrson should be on consultation.

LittleVoice

Even though the role seems to be the one you currently undertake and the other person only does part of that currently, are they capable of doing both roles? If they are then both of you should have been put into the same pool for redundancy. Is that what happened - and the other person is to have the position?

SarEl

Not necessarily. Why was the OP "not allowed" to apply for the psoition? It may not, in law, be an equivalant position.

thedriver

I spoke to acas ref the issue and was advised to raise a formal grievance,which i did last week.

I raised two issues...

The pool being flawed.

The consultative period being just paid lip service, as one of my team managed to get another position in the company and i was told he would leave my dept immediatley....normal practice in the company is the notice period is worked in the dept that you are working in.(i am pleased this person has another job)., but this proves to me consultation is not been given the true attention.

The result to the above issue raised is that they have agreed that the pool was flawed as the other managers role is changing,so it is a new position. They have now added this person to the pool. They have not restarted the 30 day period, i d

thedriver

Continued from above...

Id have thought that the pool has changed so therefore the 30 days would have to start again? Otherwise this is still flawed.

Point 2..they said higher management had concluded that the person needed to start work in a new dept asap to ensure smooth changeover....this was not communicated.

Any further advise appreaciated....by the way the new position has now been advertised with closing date monday...u know the chosen candidate will get the job esp as the person selecting was named in the original grievance...i dont want to stay...i just want fair recompence now for my hard work.


Any advice appreacated.

thedriver

just had another thought....

The fact that she is now in her own "pool" and they have advertised the new role position, with a closing date of next week, further highlights that the candidate has already been choosen for the new position.

To me this is an example of unfair dismissal...as the choice as already been made.