Redundancy - Unfair Selection?

THX1138_2

XXXXDeleted-PostXXXXXX

System

No account would be taken on any past experience, disciplinary records, sick leave or length of service.

Sounds more like they did everything possible to make it a level playing field.

but all posts were full time, and the company could not state whether they would be available on a part time basis.

Maybe she was not succesful because she wanted part time and they had already stated that there were no P/T jobs available.

The outcome is that they will see if they can find an alternative job that could be part time over the next couple of weeks

They are trying to find something for her but if there are no P/T jobs I fail to see what more they can do unless your wife goes F/T

Kate78

When a similar restructure happened in my company a few months ago, the posts were advertised as "Full time equivalents", and the company was sketchy on the details as to the possibility of part time/term time posts.

If this was the wording for your partner's position, then unfortunately the unfair selection won't apply if you think that she was discrimintated against as a part-timer.

It also sounds like the company decided to use interviews rather than skills matrix or personnel records. During our consultation we queried this approach as this is what our employer did, but the union was actually in favour of interviews as they are more of a level playing field, and I would imagine an employment tribunal would see it the same way.

Based on my experience (am not a lawyer, just someone who has been through similar recently), the chances of it being unfair selection are slim as everyone went through the same process.

melb

the poster was quite clear that having been unsuccessful in her application for the generic role that was replacing her current role, it was the "alternative" roles that were not guaranteed to be part-time. If people are going to offer advice I wish they would read the details carefully

caeler

Although this is disappointing news for your partner it doesn't mean the company acted incorrectly or illegally I'm afraid. This is always a horrible situation when the company has to reduce headcount. They have obviously chosen to not just reduce headcount but restructure the role sufficiently making it a new role. The two things are almost not connected in a way, I'll explain:

Your partners current role is no longer required. The company is required to mitigate redundancy and one important way they can try to do this is offer redeployment opportunties. It just so happens they are creating new roles in the function which are available but there could be others in the company.

The added complexity over flexible working is obviously causing your partner concern. During consultation you can raise questions, suggestions and alternative proposals? Perhaps job share could have been an option, making part time working more practical for the employer?

I appreciate your comments about skills, experience and 15 year service, but that is what redundancy compensation is there for.

Next step in my view would be for your partner to ask for feedback from the interview. The scores should be provided and explained. You won't gain access to the scores of others. This might help them understand. It could be that your partner scored well but others just scored slightly above therefore making the cut. As I said this is a tough situation.

The step after that would be to continue seeking redeployment options then if consultation concludes and employment is terminated on the basis of redundancy then your partner can appeal the decision.

Good luck.

caeler

Another thought. I assume a potential concern you have is that your partner hasn't been successful at interview solely because they want a part-time role? Have any other people been appointed on a part-time basis?