Employer uses redundancy as means to fire people

ieatcandy

Question: is this legal, and is this widespread? :mad:

I'm a PA in a company of about 200. I hear and see A LOT of things.

My employer in Sheffield, like many companies, has employees that do not perform as well as they had hoped for. But as they found out, firing people the normal way (warnings, etc) is long and not guaranteed. Often after a warning the employee 'shapes up' and performs again. So one day, inspired by a zealous HR manager, my employer realized they could just make the people 'that didn't fit' redundant.

The first few times were borderline valid, pressed on by events outside the management's control. But as time passed, the redundancies started making less and less sense. A !!!!ed off client would complain about one person, off they went being made redundant. The role would be 'covered' by already overworked colleagues, 6 months waited and the person replaced.

We're now seeing very unique and senior roles being made redundant. I know for a fact, but of course have no means to prove it except for my word, that one person in particular didn't stand any chance: the only purpose of redundancy was to get rid of them the 'fast' way. Watercooler rumour has it the excuse given by the company is that we are 'in dire straights, times are hard, etc, when in fact we are pulling millions in profit, granted probably not as much profit as the top boss would have liked to see lining up his (very large) bonus.

What concerns me about all this is that it seems legal. I've carefully read the potential reasons for unfair dismissal (on directgov) and it seems that as long as HR goes through a certain series of steps, things are fine for them.

But I could very well:
- grab just about anyone in our company
- tell them the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced
- pretend to offer them the current jobs available if any (none of them of course happening to match their skillsets, or being drastically under paid compared to their current position)
- offer them a 'fair' consultation pretending 'nothing can be done, trust us we tried soooo hard'
- pay everything due on time as per the law

... and off they go.

More worryingly, what stops the company facing an employment tribunal to plain old lie and collude saying that indeed, maybe they earned 3 million in profits but that they had actually planned for 4 millions so 1 million pounds worth of staff had to go?

A friend of mine is now gone and I'm afraid I'll be next.

wantsajob

If you can prove the position itself is not redundant, Employment Tribunal Sadly this is fairly common.

getmore4less

Suprised more companies don't do it.

a bi harder where a few people do the same job/work so you need to pool and select, but most employers can come up with selection criteria that get the result required.

More common is to use comprimise agreements with enhanced payments to mutualy agree departures.

Sambucus_Nigra

Bless you OP - for being innocent and trustworthy enough to think nobody does this.

Alot of employers do this. It's alot easier than performance management and for that - you need good managers. For a good business, you need good managers and if you don't have them - you get poor management, and even with good staff they aren't managed properly, developed properly and thus the 'redundancy' stick is waved to get rid of people they should have properly managed in the first place.

All perfectly legal.

LittleVoice

I've attended an ET where the employee claimed unfair dismissal because his employer said he was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy when in fact it was because he was not performing to their satisfaction as a financial accountant. He seemed to prefer getting some extra money out of them because he was incompetent rather than be able to go to another employer saying his leaving had been brought about by redundancy.

ILW

Surely, from ther employees point of view it is better to be made redundant than sacked due to poor performance.

Pete111

ILW wrote: »

Surely, from ther employees point of view it is better to be made redundant than sacked due to poor performance.

You would think so!

What the OP describes is very common (I confess I've done it myself on occasion...) but what is equally prevelant is that a 'problem' person actually creates their own redundancy

Lets say a manager has been a tad slack in working with HR to address some problems with a member of staff and that employee has (unfortunately) passed the point of no return as far as the mgr is concerned.

The Mgr makes the mental decision that the team member is 'out' and has a chat with HR. HR then go..."well it's not really a redundancy - it's performance & if you replace directly there are risks to the company "

The manager thinks - "God I should have been more proactive but it's too late now" and realises that he can either go through a lengthy Performance Mgt process with an employee he knows he wants out OR start thinking about the team structure and what might work better going forward.

He often decides that by rejigging things and perhaps hiring someone with a different skillset/more junior etc then things in his dept could be more efficient - maybe even cheaper too, which may gain him brownie points from his own boss.

HR take a look at the proposals, suggest some tweaks to help lower any risk further and hey presto! A genuine (or close to genuine...) redundancy situation has appeared.

(I would also add, this is why I and my HR team meet with Dept heads regularly - to catch staff performance issues before they are insurmountable!)

System

Mmm. a PA who happily chats to thousands of unknown people about their companiy's internal affairs. I wonder who is next for the chop if somebody sees this and puts 2 & 2 together?

InsideInsurance

Seems a little odd.... from an employees perspective redundancy is better as at a minimum you get more notice due to the consultation period, it looks better to the next employer than someone fired and if you have been there a while you receive a settlement.

From an employers perspective firing someone is often quicker and cheaper

getmore4less

For the one off's consultation is as short as you like.

Notice is the same 1 week per year upto 12 weeks.
statutory redundancy £430 per years service upto 20.
(ok there are some ariations for service and age)

Not that expensive if it saves a load of management/HR time.

not forgetiing the productivity gains of the replacement.

the smart people will see it coming and negotiate PILON garden leave and a comprimise agreement

nomoreboomandbust

!!!!!! wrote: »

Mmm. a PA who happily chats to thousands of unknown people about their companiy's internal affairs. I wonder who is next for the chop if somebody sees this and puts 2 & 2 together?

Yes, and also that it is in Sheffield, very indiscreet.