We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
At Risk?
Brickt0p
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi All,
Long time member of the forum but infrequent poster.
I have worked for the same large accountancy firm in the South East for the past 21 years which for obvious reasons shall remain nameless.
Recently I was advised that there would be some redundancies but not to worry as I would be ok. I was invited to attend a risk meeting with the area manager wherein I learnt that the firm had failed in its attempts to renegotiate several contracts and the business needed to reduce the number of accountants by 4 and that I was in a pool of 8.
The basis of my selection for this process was that my current workload had less than 3 months to run. Strangely enough I was not working on any of the contracts that we had failed to renegotiate.
He advised that a scoring analysis would be performed on the pool and 4 obtaining the lowest scores would be placed on consultation. Should these 4 be unable to source alternative employment within the group then they would be placed on notice.
The scoring system comprised of 12 catergories with a maximum score of 360. The catergories were outcome orientated such as feedback from clients, ability to meet deadlines, continuous improvement etc.
I was advised that I would be assessed by 3 line managers and then my area manager would moderate the scores for fairness and consistency following which I would be invited to attend a further interview.
At this interview I learnt that I was successful and my position was safe pending the outcome of appeals by others.
I have subsequently learnt that two of the 4 who were unsuccessful have had their grades moderated downwards and both are dissatisfied. One had her score reduced by almost 30%.
Naturally appeals are pending in certainly one if not more of these cases.
Therefore I wanted to ask the board:-
1. Was the process followed lawful?
2. What chances have you got to challenge scoring under these circumstances in any appeal - internally/externally?
Appreciate the boards thoughts.
BT
Long time member of the forum but infrequent poster.
I have worked for the same large accountancy firm in the South East for the past 21 years which for obvious reasons shall remain nameless.
Recently I was advised that there would be some redundancies but not to worry as I would be ok. I was invited to attend a risk meeting with the area manager wherein I learnt that the firm had failed in its attempts to renegotiate several contracts and the business needed to reduce the number of accountants by 4 and that I was in a pool of 8.
The basis of my selection for this process was that my current workload had less than 3 months to run. Strangely enough I was not working on any of the contracts that we had failed to renegotiate.
He advised that a scoring analysis would be performed on the pool and 4 obtaining the lowest scores would be placed on consultation. Should these 4 be unable to source alternative employment within the group then they would be placed on notice.
The scoring system comprised of 12 catergories with a maximum score of 360. The catergories were outcome orientated such as feedback from clients, ability to meet deadlines, continuous improvement etc.
I was advised that I would be assessed by 3 line managers and then my area manager would moderate the scores for fairness and consistency following which I would be invited to attend a further interview.
At this interview I learnt that I was successful and my position was safe pending the outcome of appeals by others.
I have subsequently learnt that two of the 4 who were unsuccessful have had their grades moderated downwards and both are dissatisfied. One had her score reduced by almost 30%.
Naturally appeals are pending in certainly one if not more of these cases.
Therefore I wanted to ask the board:-
1. Was the process followed lawful?
2. What chances have you got to challenge scoring under these circumstances in any appeal - internally/externally?
Appreciate the boards thoughts.
BT
0
Comments
-
nobody have a view?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards