Constructive Dismissal?

StarWarsNut

Hi All,
Been with my company for 4 years. Currently in a one month consultation.

Company is saying that "due to the recent employment of a deputy chief executive and the need for clarity of positions with consideration to budgetary constraints, there is a proposed management restructure".

They say this means my full time job will no longer exist, so I am being considered for redundancy. In the new structure there is a part time role with the same job title but for 3 days a week and less than half my current salary (as it's pro -rata).

Here's the things that don't sound right to me:

1) The new management structure costs more than the old one. The structure has 3 new management posts going in the current level I (and 2 other managers) are at, but none of us meet the essential job criteria for these new posts.

2) My job title still exists in this new structure, with very little 'high level' work taken out of it, and has more essential criteria and a higher certification level than my existing role (which I do meet). T

3) They say that after the consultation "they believe it is appropriate for them to offer this part time post to me" but i couldn't live on the money they are offering (they are cutting my current salary by nearly a third and then it is pro rata, so take home pay is what I earned 20 years ago).

So can they do this, or should I go down the legal route?

sorry for the wall of text, any advice greatly appreciated
Cheers

Emmzi

is the job you mention at point 2) full time and have they explained the selection process for this?

SarEl

If I am reading you correctly, your full-time job will remain as the same job but become part-time in the re-structure? If so, then the employer is tecnically correct in that the position should be offered to you, but that is not the same thing as having to accept the offer.

However I would suggest that you think this trhough very carefully before refusing. At four years with the employer, even if your employer offers an enhanced redundancy package, it will be peanuts. And a two thirds of your current salary is still almost certainly more than JSA. You may not be able to afford to live on the reduced salary - can you afford to live without any salary? It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but there are advantages to sticking with it whilst you look for other work. It is always easier to find work when in work, and infinitly easier to find a management position whilst already in one. The longer you are out of work, the more you will have to revise your expectations downwards - you could end up working full-time for what is currently being offered part-time. So unless your skills are in short supply and there are a lot of jobs out there for you to go at, you may want to consider the benefits of biding your time with some salary, and your experience and employment intact, rather than take a risk on stormy seas - it is definitely stormy out there!!!

Acc72

SarEl wrote: »

If I am reading you correctly, your full-time job will remain as the same job but become part-time in the re-structure? If so, then the employer is tecnically correct in that the position should be offered to you, but that is not the same thing as having to accept the offer.

However I would suggest that you think this trhough very carefully before refusing. At four years with the employer, even if your employer offers an enhanced redundancy package, it will be peanuts. And a two thirds of your current salary is still almost certainly more than JSA. You may not be able to afford to live on the reduced salary - can you afford to live without any salary? It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but there are advantages to sticking with it whilst you look for other work. It is always easier to find work when in work, and infinitly easier to find a management position whilst already in one. The longer you are out of work, the more you will have to revise your expectations downwards - you could end up working full-time for what is currently being offered part-time. So unless your skills are in short supply and there are a lot of jobs out there for you to go at, you may want to consider the benefits of biding your time with some salary, and your experience and employment intact, rather than take a risk on stormy seas - it is definitely stormy out there!!!

Cracking advice.

The only thing I would add to the OP - this is not in any way constructive dismissal.

Please forget about this and focus on what you need to focus on - otherwise you will possibly raise your hopes of getting something when in reality you will not.

Bigmoney2

Also you may be able to find other part time work to increase your income. May be eligable for tax credits depending on your circumstances.

StarWarsNut

Thanks for the advice everyone. I was going down the route of taking the part time job, as you said it will be more then JSA, while looking for something full time.

It was just the reason given for the management restructure that is making my full time job redundant didn't sound right - they want to save money, but the new structure they are proposing costs more?

Thank you all for taking the time to respond.
Cheers

Acc72

StarWarsNut wrote: »

Thanks for the advice everyone. I was going down the route of taking the part time job, as you said it will be more then JSA, while looking for something full time.

It was just the reason given for the management restructure that is making my full time job redundant didn't sound right - they want to save money, but the new structure they are proposing costs more?

Thank you all for taking the time to respond.
Cheers

Good luck SWN.

Hopefully the new increased management team will not expect the same volume of productivity from you in 3 days that you currently produce in 5 ......

SarEl

StarWarsNut wrote: »

Thanks for the advice everyone. I was going down the route of taking the part time job, as you said it will be more then JSA, while looking for something full time.

It was just the reason given for the management restructure that is making my full time job redundant didn't sound right - they want to save money, but the new structure they are proposing costs more?

Thank you all for taking the time to respond.
Cheers

Sorry, no, you are right. I didn't say anything about this. There is nothing in the law that prevents an employer from being stupid, or unable to do maths! If there were, 90% of the employers I come across would be acting unlawfully most days of the week The test (or one of them) is that there is a diminishing need for the work, and that is the basis of their argument in relation to your position. As someone else here has pointed out - just make sure that you work the three days they are paying for and if the workload exceeds this, keep pointing out (in writing) that XY and Z can't be done in the allocated time and which is their priority..... etc etc. It may benefit you in no way whatsoever, but it's a wonderful way of rubbing their noses in "I told you so", ever so politely and helpfully.

StarWarsNut

Thanks SarEl. just a quick point, there isn't a diminishing amount of work in the business, we are expanding but are expecting a freeze on the money we get from the primary care trust we work with (i work in the care home sector).

There is actually more work for me to do, but they think that because they have moved one part of the job away the post can go part time. I audit the houses that we run, and since I started we have gone from 14 houses to over 40, with only me doing all the work. I have told them that I am really busy when they try to give me other things to do, and usually get told that there is no one else free to do the new work.

in my first consultation meeting it was actually said that they weren't sure if the new part time post could be done in 3 days, so it may need to go to four or even five days. that's when I mentioned to them that if they are saying the job may need 5 days a week to do, with the same job title I have now, but for a lot less money wouldn't that be constructive dismissal. they went a bit quiet at that.
Cheers

SarEl

They may have gone quiet - they probably hadn't got a clue what you were talking about. Luckily, because neither did you! In business terms, and I know the sector and issues, I get what you are saying. It makes sense. But it makes business sense, not legal sense. Legally they could keep your job on five days a week from the get go, and reduce the salary - and if they knew what they were doing they could probably enforce it on you! You really don't want them to get legal advice! because seriously, I know that in the world view it is unfair, but legally it isn't. People so often think that the law operates to the view of unfair that the world holds - it doesn't.

So far they haven't appeared to do anything unlawful from what you say. Thye may do - but they probably won't. They certainly won't if you keep talking about the law, because they will lawyer up! But even if they do, and even if you win (by no means certain) an award won't be likley to be a replacement for employment or anywhere near. Believe me - when things go to a tribunal the only person who wins is me (in case you don't know, I'm an employment law barrister!).

So unless they do something very foolish, my advice is go with the flow but remember where your loyalities lie - with yourself.

StarWarsNut

Many thanks SarEl. will have to 'bite the bullet' and go with the flow as you say. hopefully something better will come along while i'm doing the part time job.