Redundancy while on a fit note!

DaB0B

Evening all,

I was in a bad motorcycle acccident in April 2015, this kept me off my work, an oil Rig Worker offshore in Scotland/Aberdeen, due to mulitple broken bones etc. Come July my GP suggested i could return to work on an ammended duties note, basically so i could work in my employers yard/workshop/office in Aberdeen doing 'light duties' untill i was fit to return to my normal role offshore. My healing didnt go to plan, and after many visits to hospital and x-rays, the consultant doctor opted i would need more surgery. This lead to me being signed off unfit to work again in September. I had surgery in November, and remained absent from work until March 2016.

During this time, in January 2016, my employer decided to start redundancies, paying off 30 guys. I was put at risk, even though i was still signed off, the process went into full swing, but near the end of the period, i was informed un-offically that i was exempt to the redundancies process due to my ill health.

Near the end of Febuary, literaly a few days after finding out my job was safe, I was visiting my GP to get a new sick note. Once again my GP suggests returning to work on the 'ammended duties' Fit note starting March the 1st 2016!

I agreed to this, as i would have lots of computer based competancy and safety courses that would of expired, and i would like to get them updated in due return for my return to work proper. Then as i am preparing for my return to work, spoke with my line manager and informed him i would return Monday 29th Feb, my employer announces more redundancies.

So once again i get the at risk letter. 43 people in total to go. 5 from my department of 38 people. So i am at work for the few weeks running into March, on this 'ammended duties' Fit note from my GP, and i am informed that i am one of the 5 to be made redundant.

The selection criteria my employer used is based partly on skills and reporting, also compliance to there safety and competancy computer based training certificates. The periods they looked at these reports and certificates is the whole of 2015 and Jan, Feb of 2016.

So how can they possibly score me fairly on this selection criteria as i have not perfomed my usual job for a year due to ill health? I have not yet seen how they scored me, but my manager told me that they have tryed to score me fairly based on some averages. No idea yet what averages, but to me it seems like they have just fabricated a score for myself.

Bearing in mind i am still not fit to return to my usual job, i have follow up appointments in April to see how my bones are healing, but i am in high spirits this would be a good visit, and hopefully be the last if not one of the last visits required to hospital.

So am i being treated unfairly?

Is my employer allowed to use this skills/reporting/compentancy matrix to get rid of me?

Also not once during my return in July 2015, or March 2016 on the ammended duties note, did my employer send me to any occupational health assements, or review my working enviroment to make sure it was suitible. Not once have they made an attempt to help my return to work.

What would you do in my situation? What do i do next about this? Seek legal advice? raise my concerns with my employer?

Any help, advice or similar stories would be greatly appriecated. Even just another opinion would be nice, dont be shy.

Thanks

Bob

DaB0B

I will also add I find it hard to understand that while i was signed off unfit for work, my employers seen me as untouchable in the 1st redundancy process. Then i return to work on an ammended duties note from my GP for 2 weeks, and i am fair game for the 2nd redundancy in my employers eyes.

This just doesnt make sense to me.

I am still unfit for my normal duites!

Scorpio33

Despite what you have been told, being signed off sick does not make you exempt from redundancy.


It is the role that is redundant and therefore anyone performing that role will be paid off.


If you are officially performing a role that has been redundant, as long as the selection criteria is fair and they have followed the correct process (ie: consultation etc), there is not a lot you can do.


Is there selection criteria fair? It does seem so to me - they have determined what skills are required to fulfil the job and then have to make an assessment of those skills based on information they have.


It does seem a bit harsh, but I think there is little you can do in this situation.

DaB0B

I understand that being signed off work doesnt make you exempt. This is what i was told by someone un-officaly at my work after the 1st round.

I think that the way its was meant is that collectively, someone off due to ill health is entitled to be selected in the same process as everyone else. So when it comes to a skills based and performance criteria, It would be discriminatory to select someone because of there ill health. It would also be discriminatory to select them due to performance, as they have not been there to do there duties.

So how does my returning to work for a couple of weeks make me selectable on a skills and performance based Criteria, that last month i wasnt selectable for?

Takeaway_Addict

DaB0B wrote: »

I understand that being signed off work doesnt make you exempt. This is what i was told by someone un-officaly at my work after the 1st round.

I think that the way its was meant is that collectively, someone off due to ill health is entitled to be selected in the same process as everyone else. So when it comes to a skills based and performance criteria, It would be discriminatory to select someone because of there ill health. It would also be discriminatory to select them due to performance, as they have not been there to do there duties.

So how does my returning to work for a couple of weeks make me selectable on a skills and performance based Criteria, that last month i wasnt selectable for?

It would be discriminatory (but remember all scoring is discriminatory) but only unlawful if that discrimination breaks the equality act 2010....car accident may or may not protect you and only a tribunal could definatively decide.

Your problem is that if the company feel it isn't you would have to take it further to get that decision

DaB0B

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

It would be discriminatory (but remember all scoring is discriminatory) but only unlawful if that discrimination breaks the equality act 2010....car accident may or may not protect you and only a tribunal could definatively decide.

Your problem is that if the company feel it isn't you would have to take it further to get that decision

I have my first private consultation meeting tomorrow with my Manager and a HR rep, i think this will be the angle i take to try and keep my job. If no joy, i have been to the citizen advice today, so they have my details, and are willing to pass on to a specialist company to see if i have been treated unfairly.

All depends on if they can convince me they have scored me fairly, or i can convince them i should never of been included in any scoring, or that i should be scored higher. Shall be an interesting meeting anyway. I willl take someone with me, a second set of ears, and another opinion after might come in use.

DaB0B

Had my private consultation today. I raised the question of why was i not included in the 1st redundancy process? The Answer i received was because I would of been at a disadvantage due to my absence.

So i asked what is different this time, i return to work 3 days after you announced the 2nd round of redundancies, on an amended duties note from my GP, so you are under no obligation to accommodate me, but you invite me back to work, then send out my at risk letter 5 days after everyone else. What has changed in that short period is have been back, that I have lost that previous disadvantage, and now I am fair game?

She had no reply to this and moved on to the next topic, so I had to raise the question again, to which her reply was she will have to look into it.

I think i will carry on at this angle in the hope of keeping my job.

Please share your opinions on this, i am very interested to hear others thoughts on this.

Thanks

Takeaway_Addict

DaB0B wrote: »

Had my private consultation today. I raised the question of why was i not included in the 1st redundancy process? The Answer i received was because I would of been at a disadvantage due to my absence.

So i asked what is different this time, i return to work 3 days after you announced the 2nd round of redundancies, on an amended duties note from my GP, so you are under no obligation to accommodate me, but you invite me back to work, then send out my at risk letter 5 days after everyone else. What has changed in that short period is have been back, that I have lost that previous disadvantage, and now I am fair game?

She had no reply to this and moved on to the next topic, so I had to raise the question again, to which her reply was she will have to look into it.

I think i will carry on at this angle in the hope of keeping my job.

Please share your opinions on this, i am very interested to hear others thoughts on this.

Thanks

If they turn round and say they should not have omitted you last time what would you do?

sangie595

DaB0B wrote: »

I It would be discriminatory to select someone because of there ill health. It would also be discriminatory to select them due to performance, as they have not been there to do there duties.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Disability or not, absence from work due to ill health is a fair criteria for selecting for redundancy. And so is performance. Why would an employer wish to retain someone not there to do their duties over someone who is?

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

Actually, no it wouldn't. Disability or not, absence from work due to ill health is a fair criteria for selecting for redundancy. And so is performance. Why would an employer wish to retain someone not there to do their duties over someone who is?

Absences is a fair criteria, but someones health is not. That is the law. Absence is not in my employers criteria.

Everyone is entitled to a fair selection process. They cant change the selection criteria to suit an individual. Everyone must be looked at in the same way.

I dont think anyone replying to this thread is even reading what i write. Making claims and saying things i never once wrote. If you choose to reply at least read what i write. Not once have i mentioned a criteria with absence. Not one have i claim my employer can not make me redundant because of my ill health. If you read what i have written, it is my Employer is dancing around my illness, scared to take action against it, and even admitted i was at a disadvantage because of my ill health. This is things my employer is doing, not what i am claiming, or trying to make up lies about the law.

DaB0B

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

If they turn round and say they should not have omitted you last time what would you do?

I doubt they will. They would have to admit they were wrong, so how can the claim to be correct this time?

Not to mention the score they gave me was absurd, so i have two angles to try and keep my job.

Edit: I should also add. I was originaly included in the 1st round of redundancies. The mangement was also asked i long term sicks guys where included during the employee rep meetings, they changed there answers twice, including us, then excluding, then we where includeed again by the 3rd meeting. Three days before we find out if our job was safe or not, long term sick where excluded once again.

That was in January, so they have had a few months to think about and check were they stand in regards to the law. So for her to say that at my meeting, she has had plenty of conversations about it i am sure.