New Roles...

AngryDog

I am currently a team leader in the company that I work for. I am one of four team leaders for our department, two males and two females. Our over all manager is female.

The department is changing and as a result the four team leader roles are being abolished, with two new team leader roles being created (one to run the first line support team, the other for the second line support team). The two female team leaders have been given these new roles, and myself and the other male team leader have been given different, lesser roles (I am being moved back to a team that I left some time ago).

No interviews took place, it was basically a case of this is how it is, either accept it, or you are free to do the new role whilst seeking employment else where (like that would happen!).

There are many questions but the few that are in my main thoughts are;

None of the new roles were advertised, so no one could apply for them. Is this right?

I have been demoted without being able to apply for one of the team leader positions. Is this right?

I am not very happy about this, especially as I will now be reporting to one of these people, who I have been on the same level with now for some time, and who I also do not particularly get on that well with.

I feel aggrieved and slightly discriminated against, but again, do I really have a right to feel this way?

I guess what I'm really asking, is have my company gone about this the wrong way?

Thanks.

Emmzi

In my experience they could have advertised and interviewed but if the current sturcture is the one they always wanted it would have turned out like that anyway. So in effect they have saved everyone a month of faffing about. Fair and transparent? no. Illegal in a discriminatory way? Maybe, but how would you prove it? Poor practice? Definitely.

lincroft1710

Has your pay been reduced?

nightingalesgarden

Of course it is best practice to go through an open selection process - but there really is nothing to stop an employer making decisions such as these as long as they are not making changes to your employment contract that are unlawful.

Referring to your post - you need to remember that unreasonable behaviour by itself, does not equate to unlawful discriminatory behaviour.

Just because two women remained in post and two men were moved/suffered a detriment (though you have not mentioned that you have lost pay/overtime/grade) does not mean that the detriment is unlawful.

The fact that your management has made it clear that they don't mind if you stay or go....that would be the part that I would be worrying about! Do you think they have moved you so that you feel uncomfortable and leave? Have there been some problems in the past with your management/questions about your ability to do your job? Anything other than, as you state in your post, an active decision to discriminate against a protected characteristic (sex)

If one of the other questions you are thinking about is about constructive dismissal - do a search on this forum - plenty of advice on exhausting grievance processes/difficulties.

getmore4less

How long have you worked there?

This possibly should be a redundancy situation,

If the 4 jobs were the same then it is a 4 into 2, you have been offered alternative positions.

You could try to go down the redundancy route by rejecting the role as not a suitable alternative.

So what is not suitable about the role.

Location?
pay?
Hours?
position and status?

You will likely need more than position/status.

Chances are they will reject any redundancy case so you will end up at a tribunal to try to get paid off.

Also have a good look at the contract my previous employer the contracts were quite open about the kind of thing you could be expected to do and leading roles and technical roles were interchangable.

nightingalesgarden

getmoreforless - Absolutely agree that your questions do need to be answered by AngryDog so that we can give clear advice.

However unless he drops a huge bombshell I cannot see that any of the three tests under the Employment Rights Act have been met to show a possible lawful dismissal for the reason of redundancy - so I'm a little lost on how he can force the employers hand (if the employers had wanted to make him redundant surely they would have done - it's easy enough to make a case).

Dependent on the responses to your questions there may be a breach of contract...potentially he could force the employer to give notice if there are benefits that are changing

But I still believe this is just a re-organisation badly managed - the employee and employer should be able to resolve through informal/formal grievance procedures and, of course, should follow this route before considering the Tribunal route (but keep detailed notes from now on:) )

getmore4less

Not sure how you came to the conclusion it is not a potential redundancy,

The need for 4 people doing team leader roles has diminishsed by the restructure from 4-2.

looks like employment act 129.1.b.i applies.


It is not uncommon for employers to try to avoid there redundancy obligations by redeploying and hopeing people leave seems very common in the public sector.

yvonne13_2

OP will your pay drop or will it remain at the same level even though your going backwards work wise?

Also was your role on a temp basis?

nightingalesgarden

Getmoreforless - sorry I can't quote but in response.

I understand how the test reads in the Act which is clear that the definition of redundancy is objective but if you are talking about tribunals/forcing an employer to make a redundancy by referring to law then we must look to how an tribunal would act (and therefore how likely your suggested response would be successful in an employment tribunal)

I would suggest that the test here should not the contract or function of the individual but rather the test here is if there was a diminution in the employers requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. This is a broad test - and I would suggest that it has not been met with the information that we have.

You and I know that if there was a redundancy situation (and at the moment there isn't as no process has been followed) that alternative employment not being suitable is a weak reason to go to tribunal - that and strong unions trying to save as many jobs as possible is why the public sector is strong on offering alternative posts.

Whether I agree with the public sector policy is not for this post - however the law in the UK does protect people from being "fired at will" and for that I am thankful.

AngryDog

Thanks for all the responses.


So what is not suitable about the role.

Location? - Same
pay? - Increased (sweetener, but less than the 2 women doing the other roles)
Hours? - Same
position and status? - less. I am now on the same level as the people I was managing.

I was told by my manager that they do not want me to leave. I do not think that I am in a position to leave with the job market being as it is, but wanted to know my options before over all agreeing to it. I feel backed into a corner and that I have to do the new role, regardless of the fact that its putting me into a job I left some time ago because I didnt see my career or future there.

nightingalesgarden

I understand that you feel backed into a corner but I cannot see what you can do apart from making a complaint. As was explained in earlier posts - we are not sure if that will achieve anything if all you want is to remain in your current role.

Another view might be that they really value you in the role that they are putting you back into (I think the extra money indicates that they do) and that is why they have made the change. I know this does not fit with your career aspirations but employers don't always balance that against the needs of the business.

The only thing sure in business is that it changes - all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if someone higher up just "decided" that less team leaders were needed with little thought of how this would be managed - the fact that women were selected and men weren't may not be related to gender - rather managers putting people into slots where they feel they best fit. Hopefully in a few months they'll realise it was a bad idea and create more TL roles...