UPDATED: Hours to be reduced by 50%

Steel_2

***I have updated this thread as I know know the options they want me to consider (see below)***

My company has been having trouble for a while. They're seeking merger, and it looks as if that might happen, but in the meantime they will run out of money before it happens so they are restructuring to survive.

During an update meeting today where the intention to restructure was announced, a proposed 'indicative' structure to the company was shown around. As I'm on leave, I dialed into the meeting and received an email from an executive with the proposed structure document.

It is clear that at least 11 jobs were not on the proposed structure, so some of my colleagues will lose their jobs, but my role was the only one with 50% underneath it. Clearly they intend to reduce my hours from 35 to 17.5 and we were told that all with jobs 'at risk' will have a consultation with the exec within the next 10 days, starting tomorrow.

Can anyone shed any light on the outcomes of this for me in the future (besides the obvious!).

What do I have to be careful of during this consultation, anything that I could agree to or sign that would disadvantage me even worse that it looks like I will be?

nightingalesgarden

It really depends how the management are going to select people for redundancy. It usually isn't as simple as looking at a structure chart and seeing where you slot in. How the management selects who stays, goes or moves to alternative jobs or tasks depends - you could be invited to apply for roles, they may have a matrix and select behind the scenes.

What they shouldn't be able to do is to slot you into a role with a reduction of 50% of your hours (doesn't meant they won't try). A significant reduction in work triggers redundancy. They can offer it - but I cannot see that it is reasonable to expect you to accept this.

But if they offer you an alternative role which is full time, just because your previous role has been made 50% less, this does not automatically trigger redundancy.

As part of the consultation process they should explain what the options are. Then you will have a better idea of what the likely outcome will be.

Steel_2

Thanks Nightingale

There are no other jobs being offered at my level. They made it clear that people on the proposed structure doing the jobs that were considered necessary to the continued function of the company would stay and were represented by a bold box around them on the structure diagram. Only those with dashed lines around them would be at risk. Some people's jobs weren't even on there at all, which we were told meant their position were at risk of being made redundant. The at risk jobs were admin and lower grade assistant positions. My position had a solid line round it and just 50% in brackets, so according to their rules I'm not considered at risk.

My line manager knew nothing of their plans to reduce my hours before the announcement and went in to see them yesterday.

They told him they only have enough money currently in the forecast from April to have a part-time person in my position (I have a relatively unique job in the company that only I or my manager can do due to our qualifications) unless my line manager and I pulled in some project work or funding from outside and then my hours would go up to full time again.

Personally, if they only have six months worth of money for my position I would prefer to stay full time for those six months and then be put on redundancy notice if the money is not forthcoming. At least that way if there is a second round of redundancies I would get a better package than I would get if I were part-time. Also, if we spend six months trying to pull money in and don't succeed I'm going to be so disillusioned working there I'll be looking to move on anyway.

I already am quite disillusioned by the way the job has panned out over the last 18 months to be honest.

There is another cynical angle to this.

They want to make my position redundant, but my line manager has an infamous temper that he's used on the upper management before. Truth be told they are a little scared of him.

So, they offer a position of only 50% of my hours, knowing it will be unacceptable to me (a drop of £1k a month is pretty big) and hoping I would take redundancy package. However, it would be my decision not theirs, and they could escape his dreadful temper because I had made the decision not them.

If I don't take redundancy and line manager and I get the project money in for me to increase my hours, that would be good for them and the company too.

Either way, they win.

getmore4less

Why can't they make the manger redundant and keep you on full time doing the "only we" can do work" and someone else can pick up the other stuff he does.

You might be able to treat the reduction as a layoff for a 50% reduction go for redundancy after a time.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Understandingyourworkstatus/Temporarylayoff/DG_10026693

IMO you should be put at risk since the job is no longer(50% is a change to far) there and you are looking at this as an alterenative.

in your possition It looks like not accepting and pushing for them to make you redundant or go to full time might be the best option.

reduction in hours and future reduced redundancy is a big risk.

nightingalesgarden

Steel,

I'm really scratching my head over this one. I just can't work out what your management are up to....

How much service do you have? Is it 18 months?

Steel_2

Getmore - They'll never make that manager redundant. He's been a feature in the company since the beginning. He's a lifer. How he fares in the a possible new merged company though...who knows.

Nightingale - I have 18 months, so technically I'm not entitled to redundancy package. However I suspect they will put one together anyway. They have said everyone at risk will get three month's notice which they can take in lieu if they want, even if they only have contracts which stipulate a month's notice, so they've been quite generous there and I've no reason to suspect they'll get petty.

I understand why I've had to be cut down - in fact looking at it I'm surprised I haven't gone altogether. We lose government funding on April 1st (known for a year it was going) and we've been trying to replace some of the income over the last three months by bidding and tendering for contracts, but nothing yet. We have other sources of income but obviously there's a shortfall.

Unofficially I've heard through the grapevine that they fought to keep me against the board etc, but that might just be bullsh*t to make me feel better about it.

I used to be a freelancer so I'm wondering whether it is in their minds that I could do some of that on the side to counteract the shortfall in my income until such time company income improves?

BobQ

Are you sure that 50% means they will cut your hours by 50%? Or are you just assuming it? Could it be that they have two posts that are 50% of a full time person so they are indicating this on the diagram. Are there any other posts that are 50% on the diagram or could there be one on another diagram?

Steel_2

BobQ wrote: »

Are you sure that 50% means they will cut your hours by 50%? Or are you just assuming it? Could it be that they have two posts that are 50% of a full time person so they are indicating this on the diagram. Are there any other posts that are 50% on the diagram or could there be one on another diagram?

Nope. I'm the only person is the company with 50% against their name, and the diagram relating to the restructuring of the company is the only one there is.

The official letter which turned up this morning confirming the date and time of my consultation says they have identified the need to reduce my role to 50% of the current contracted hours.

My immediate boss is wondering whether this is a move towards a subsidiary company, which has been talked about and for which I had to do a business case for recently to see if it was financially viable. They were clutching at straws for a bit and flailing around as all companies in trouble do. I never thought for a second they would go with it, as although on paper the financials looked good the personalities that would have to be involved could have doomed the company within a couple of years. That was a serious risk I identified.

So they could be intending to move my role to being paid 50% by the company and 50% by contracted projects, with a view to moving me to 100% project income within a consultancy and then my boss follows suit. However, that was most not in my business case.

We'll just have to see what they come out with tomorrow.

getmore4less

this gets messy

You need to make sure you get the 3 months full pay that you would get if you decide to be made redundant.

Take it now and leave
work it and go to 50% in 3 months
insist your contract gets rewriten to include a termination clause so if you have to go later you get 3 month PILON at full pay.

You also want all restrictions on working elsewhere removed.
You also want any overtime(upto full time) to qualify for holidays.

Steel_2

Thank you Getmore. Very good advice.

Steel_2

Well, had the consultation Friday and I'm not sure why I was worried.

They hadn't considered my contract. Nothing. They thought I'd just reduce my hours and then one day they could tell me "hey! You're full time again from next week."

Unbelievable.

They had no info for me about how my employee benefits might change if I had to go on a fixed term temporary contract, what would happen to my pension, nothing.

They looked like they had been caught in headlights.

The witness is typing up the notes she made for us both to sign and we are having a second meeting this Friday to go through the answers to my contract questions, which they are getting from an external HR consultant they occassionally use.