Consultation period for less than 20 employees

mrsvanderkamp_2

Hi there

I am hoping someone could answer the following questions for me, I'd be very grateful for any advice.

My husband has been told today that he and 2 other employees (in a company of around 40) have been "selected" for redundancy and he apparently now has a "meeting" about it tomorrow. I have several questions:

1. I was under the impression that a firm wide announcement should be made on the intention to make redundancies in the first instance?

2. Following this those who are identified as at risk should be notified (in writing?)

3. A date would then be advised at which the "consultation" would begin ie; reason for selection, scoring, opinions on how to mitigate etc? This meeting should reasonably take place not less than a week after the initial notification?

4. Following such "consultation" (I use speech marks as i'm not sure it can reasonably be called such..) the decision is advised to the employee?

In addition I would be grateful if anyone could answer the following:

1. My husband is Production Manager in a joinery company and as such runs the day to day production of the joinery workshop - this role cannot be made redundant, it will simply be "absorbed" by others. On the basis that the role still exists can it be called "redundant"?

2. My husband is a qualified joiner and his company still require joiners so on that basis is it

a) fair to select him for redundancy based on his skill set (ie there are others with less experience, skills and expertise who could be make redundant) and

b) fair to not offer him a lower position on this basis (we don't know that they won't but it seems unlikely, as they simply want to save his salary which probably pays for 2 bench joiners.

Thanks in advance.

Cybes100

Hello,

I know very little, but the same thing has just happened to me (still seeking legal advice).
From what I have learnt - if it's less than 20 employees per dept effected, then they do not need to offer a consultation period.
They can make anyone 'redundant' under a settlement agreement.

I'll watch this thread too, as I seem to be in the same position.

Takeaway_Addict

Cybes100 wrote: »

Hello,

I know very little, but the same thing has just happened to me (still seeking legal advice).
From what I have learnt - if it's less than 20 employees per dept effected, then they do not need to offer a consultation period.
They can make anyone 'redundant' under a settlement agreement.

I'll watch this thread too, as I seem to be in the same position.

Its not redundancy if you agree to a settlement, its a mutual parting of ways.

Cybes100

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Its not redundancy if you agree to a settlement, its a mutual parting of ways.

As my settlement agreement states 'by way of redundancy', I was told that it was redundancy.
I'm hoping it is, due to my insurance!

Takeaway_Addict

Cybes100 wrote: »

As my settlement agreement states 'by way of redundancy', I was told that it was redundancy.
I'm hoping it is, due to my insurance!

Maybe then? I always thought that as you are signing a compromise agreement (presumably you have been advised to see a solicitor for which the employer is paying an X amount to?)

mrsvanderkamp_2

I'm not convinced my husbands employers have gone about this in the right way still - basically they have given him a letter to say that they are considering redundancies and that his job is one of those at risk - the thing is they are only making 3 people redundant (one of whom is my DH) but they have only sent the letters to the 3 people concerned!! surely they need to send the letter to all those in management/office/admin as it is those that are affected and not the joiners in the workshop. Surely you can't just "pre-select" those you want to make redundant? Well I guess you can and do, but you don't make it so obvious. So you send the letters out to all staff of course knowing full well beforehand who is going to go. But if you don't pay lip service to that procedure at the very least, then surely this is an abuse of the process (my DH had his "consultation" today and has been given 5 weeks' notice :-( )

Helpfulone

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

I'm not convinced my husbands employers have gone about this in the right way still - basically they have given him a letter to say that they are considering redundancies and that his job is one of those at risk - the thing is they are only making 3 people redundant (one of whom is my DH) but they have only sent the letters to the 3 people concerned!! surely they need to send the letter to all those in management/office/admin as it is those that are affected and not the joiners in the workshop. Surely you can't just "pre-select" those you want to make redundant? Well I guess you can and do, but you don't make it so obvious. So you send the letters out to all staff of course knowing full well beforehand who is going to go. But if you don't pay lip service to that procedure at the very least, then surely this is an abuse of the process (my DH had his "consultation" today and has been given 5 weeks' notice :-( )

When our company went through redundancy EVERYONE got a letter. It was pretty obvious who the people would be but the letter went to everyone.

mrsvanderkamp_2

Helpfulone wrote: »

When our company went through redundancy EVERYONE got a letter. It was pretty obvious who the people would be but the letter went to everyone.

Yes exactly, I was under threat just before Christmas last year and it was the same - all admin staff got the letter even though they knew who was going to go. And we still all went through the scoring process ect.

Takeaway_Addict

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

Yes exactly, I was under threat just before Christmas last year and it was the same - all admin staff got the letter even though they knew who was going to go. And we still all went through the scoring process ect.

Unless other people are doing the job he is doing or a very similar one then there as I see it no reason to involve other people. Remember its the job thats redundant not the person.

If they are spreading his job other people and he can do the others person role he may have a case of asking them to be in the pool as well but if he cannot do the vast majority then I would expect not.

Takeaway_Addict

Also, if the role is being absorbed by others then of course it has gone as no one person will be doing it.

if you are unsure if its being done correctly then as I am sure you are doing get reading and get some professional help. A small fee now may gain you more money later.

Takeaway_Addict

EDITED: why have you deleted the quoted below?

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

But that is the point, the job itself is not redundant - the operation cannot operate without someone undertaking that role. They simply want to save money by making my husband redundant and then asking those who are left to add his tasks to their own, that is what I meant by them "absorbing" the role. It still needs to done but those who remain will just be asked to take on the tasks.

As I said they have basically picked 3 people and said "we're making you redundant!" Not a due process I think. :-/

You're not understanding this, they are taking the level away from the company structure...job gone, not there which is quite legal and done quite often when companies realise they don't need it. Other people maybe picking up some of his work but his job role is finished.