Redundancy while on a fit note!

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

It is in fact you that is bringing up your illness and absence - as a reason for why you think the criteria cannot be scored fairly. Hence your title to the thread. Therefore your attendance and illness are entirely relevant, whether criteria or not. Which you would know if you actually worked with employment law on a daily basis as I do. If you cannot see the relevance then that is because you are fixed on a particular view which does not reflect how things actually work. Links or not, there is a lot of incorrect and misinterpret information on the internet. One of which is that you cannot be dismissed due to illness. Illness is not the same thing as disability, and only disability is covered under the Equality Act. There are no protections at all in regard to illness. Whether your situation counts as a disability is not clear, but you can be, and people are, dismissed for illness. Regularly.

Long-term absence or sickness dismissal is a completely different topic. This would be an idvidual person. Not a collective. The employer also has to go through many other procedures, none of which i have even talked about on this thread.

This is about Redundancy. A collective group of employees at risk of loosing there jobs because the employer has a reduced need of capacity.

The employer has to go through a fair selection criteria. This includes everyone, ill, disabled or good health. Every person must be looked at the same. You can not look at Joe Bloggs based on perfomance alone, then look at John Smith based on ill health or disability alone when they both perform the same job role, and are both at risk in the same redundancy period. This would be discrimination.

Can we agree on that?

Also i should add, my employer is a multi billion dollar corporation. They have 95000 employees. I think that the HR department will know what they are doing. Please stop making out that i am make false comments. This is my life i have been living since January. Everything i have told is a true refelction of what has been happening.

chib

Something nobody will tell you that you'll probably not want to hear - if they want you out they'll find a way.

It may not be a bad idea to take the redundancy and keep terms good with the employer for when the oil and gas market picks up again.

DaB0B

chib wrote: »

Something nobody will tell you that you'll probably not want to hear - if they want you out they'll find a way.

It may not be a bad idea to take the redundancy and keep terms good with the employer for when the oil and gas market picks up again.

That is something else i have thought about. I still feel the score they gave me on the criteria matrix is open to debate, so i am sure there will plenty to discuss based on that alone, might even save my job with that alone.

But still want them to answer why i was not included in the January redundancies. What is different now? The 'disadvantage' as she used to describ it, still stands. 2015 has been and gone, nothing i can do to change that. So i want an answer as to why that disadvantage is no longer taking into account, because i spent 13 days in the office in 2016.

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

So we are now gossiping forum trolls? One wonders why you are even here if that is your attitude. For your information I know perfectly well that you are at risk of losing your job, just like the members that I represent are at risk of losing their jobs. They therefore do not need to rely on gossiping forum trolls. If you want someone to confirm what I have said, get a lawyer. That way you don't have to rely on advice that you clearly do not want.

Also if you work with employment law as you say you do, you would know that the equality act 2010 protects certain conditons etc, treating someone differently, or dismissing them because of there protected status under the Equality Act 2010 would lead to a discrimination claim.

There is also unfair dismissal claims. This does not need anyone to be protected as disabled, !!!!!exual, pregnant etc. This can be applied to anyone if they have grounds for a claim.

By my employers own admission, i was excluded from the 1st redundacies because i would of been 'disadvantaged'. I will repeat this for you because i know you have some trouble reading what i write. The Human Resources representative at my 1st Private consulation meeting, because i had been selected for redundancy, as they had scored me in the bottom 5 employees from the agreed upon scoring matrix, nothing to do with being absent or ill or disabled. This HR rep when asked why i was not in the 1st redundacy round used the word ''Disadvantaged'' to describe why i was excluded.

In other words, they must of seen it as unfair to score me, and must of feared an unfair dismissal claim or maybe even a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010. That is the question i have asked, and wait for a reponse. I will happily share the response i get next week.

sangie595

DaB0B wrote: »

Also if you work with employment law as you say you do, you would know that the equality act 2010 protects certain conditons etc, treating someone differently, or dismissing them because of there protected status under the Equality Act 2010 would lead to a discrimination claim.

There is also unfair dismissal claims. This does not need anyone to be protected as disabled, !!!!!exual, pregnant etc. This can be applied to anyone if they have grounds for a claim.

By my employers own admission, i was excluded from the 1st redundacies because i would of been 'disadvantaged'. I will repeat this for you because i know you have some trouble reading what i write. The Human Resources representative at my 1st Private consulation meeting, because i had been selected for redundancy, as they had scored me in the bottom 5 employees from the agreed upon scoring matrix, nothing to do with being absent or ill or disabled. This HR rep when asked why i was not in the 1st redundacy round used the word ''Disadvantaged'' to describe why i was excluded.

In other words, they must of seen it as unfair to score me, and must of feared an unfair dismissal claim or maybe even a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010. That is the question i have asked, and wait for a reponse. I will happily share the response i get next week.

Oh dear. I do hope it works out for you, and you may believe that or not. But your law is seriously flawed. And I am not the only person to tell you this. There is NO evidence you are protected by the Equality Act, and even if you are covered by it, protections are seriously limited. Whether or not your employer knows the law as well as I do doesn't prove a thing. You had no legal entitlement to be excluded the first time round, you certainly don't now.

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

Oh dear. I do hope it works out for you, and you may believe that or not. But your law is seriously flawed. And I am not the only person to tell you this. There is NO evidence you are protected by the Equality Act, and even if you are covered by it, protections are seriously limited. Whether or not your employer knows the law as well as I do doesn't prove a thing. You had no legal entitlement to be excluded the first time round, you certainly don't now.

Did you completely miss the part about unfair dismissal?

Unfair dismissal is completely different to discrimination under the Equality act 2010.

Employment Rights Act 1996 is the legislation states that every employee requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated.

Ill say it again for you. It is my employer that stated i was not included in the last round of redundacnies because i would be at a disadvantage because of my absence.

I am not the one acting on the law here. I am subject to the actions of my employer. It is my employer who is acting out the law, and responding with these comments. This is what i am going through in my life right at this present moment, I couldnt make all this !!!! up even if i wanted to.

TBagpuss

Your employer may have taken the view that while you were actually off work, it would have disadvnataged ou to have involved you in a process in which you could not fully particpate. Now that you are back at work, albeit on light duties, you can participate and are not disadvantaged in the same way. Simialrly, they may feel that you, and they, are clearer about your long term prospects and are not at a disdvantage in terms of any potential altenrative positions etc.

It is also possible that the individual who gave the explanation misspoke or had misunderstood.

You are in a different positon now than you were uin the first rounds, I don't think that arguing that because you were excluded last time you should not be included this time is going to help you.

Your arguments about the scores assigned are stronger - it is reasonable to ask them how they calculated them. If they extrapoloated from the months you were in, or took the average of your last full year working, for instance.

DaB0B

TBagpuss wrote: »

Your employer may have taken the view that while you were actually off work, it would have disadvnataged ou to have involved you in a process in which you could not fully particpate. Now that you are back at work, albeit on light duties, you can participate and are not disadvantaged in the same way. Simialrly, they may feel that you, and they, are clearer about your long term prospects and are not at a disdvantage in terms of any potential altenrative positions etc.

It is also possible that the individual who gave the explanation misspoke or had misunderstood.

You are in a different positon now than you were uin the first rounds, I don't think that arguing that because you were excluded last time you should not be included this time is going to help you.

Your arguments about the scores assigned are stronger - it is reasonable to ask them how they calculated them. If they extrapoloated from the months you were in, or took the average of your last full year working, for instance.

I have a copy of the scores they have assigned myself. One person looked at what i did acheive, in the short period i was of good health in 2015, and has gave a score that in his opinion i would of achieved had it not been for my injury.

So this one person has basically fabricated a score for me, and not a good one.

TBagpuss

DaB0B wrote: »

I have a copy of the scores they have assigned myself. One person looked at what i did acheive, in the short period i was of good health in 2015, and has gave a score that in his opinion i would of achieved had it not been for my injury.

So this one person has basically fabricated a score for me, and not a good one.

Well, they have to 'favbricate' a score because you were not there to generate one.

If they can reasonably justify how they came up with the one they used it is unlikely to be unfair. (even if you don;t, persoanlly feel that it was fair)

I think this is your strongest element - ask how the score was calculated. Work out what your score would have been, agaisnt that matrix, for the last full year when you were in work, and see how they differ. If the score includes needing to learn new skills becuae things have changed, then see whether you can find examples of times when you have had to learn new skills in the past, so you can point to these.