Redundancy selection

nobertgreen

I am part of a small team working on certain types of special jobs. The team consists of myself, another individual with whom I work closely and share workload, and a supervisor. The other person is at my pay grade and has been with the company marginally longer, but has several less years experience and often relies on my expertise.

Due to external pressures the team size is being cut to one person and a supervisor. I have been selected as the person to cut, there are no opportunities outside this team and I am therefore facing redundancy.

I have not been told of the reason why I have been selected instead of my colleague and was quite surprised because I know we are at the same pay grade and as previously stated, I do not require as much supervision. However I am aware that this person is quite 'chummy' with some of the other more senior staff.

Is the company obliged to give a valid reason for having selected me?
Are they obliged to show me any metrics (such as appraisal scores) that they have used to make the decision (since this would necessarily require divulging the other persons scoring) or are they allowed to give a vague or unsubstantiated explanation?

London50

First...how long have you worked for them {under two years they can get rid of a person for any reason other than race, gender ect}. As far as I know they do not have to give a reason as to why they are keeping a and making b redundant and as you say in your situation your other team member being more friendly with the senior staff could have had some bearing on the outcome but as I say I do not believe they have to give the reasons {valid or not}.

I will state I am no expert on these matters it is just my gut feeling and I respect anyone replying that knows for sure if I am correct ornot.

Gettingtherequickly

Only been through this process once so feel for you. In my case, the selection process was a farce, in my favour. The decision had been made before the other person & I went through the rigmarole of selection, I was actually told that when I went in to the meeting, in fact, they told me that the scoring process was having to be manipulated so the disparity was not as big as it actually was.

Ask for the scoring process, we were automatically given ours, it may be utter rubbish as in my case, or it may indicate that you have marginally lost on length of service. Whatever the reason, walk out with your head held high, knowing you are taking the experience working there elsewhere and that you have alot to give a future employer.

Best of luck.

TELLIT01

If your face fits and who gets on best with the person making the decision are often bigger factors than ability to do the job or any other scoring matrix.
Some years ago there were redundancies where I worked and there was universal shock at one of the people who was kept. This individual had probably had nearly as much time off sick (almost always a Monday or Friday, and just one day) as the rest of the department put together. They were also never available to work late if there were problems to resolve, and weren't that great at the job either. There were certainly people who contributed far more to the effective running of the department.
The only factor we could see in this individuals favour was that they attended the same church as the person making the decision and were very good friends with this person's wife!

sangie595

Technically, they do have to explain why you were selected and provide you with any scoring etc. But they don't have to give you the other persons, and in fact shouldn't give it to you as it is not able to be anonymised. But frankly, I wouldn't bother in your shoes. Fair or not, it'll be manipulated to be fair in law if necessary, and won't tell you anything useful. Your efforts are better spent getting another job. Employers will keep whoever they want to keep, for whatever reasons they want. If they judge knowing someone above professional capability then they are rubbish at planning a business, and you might want to consider how long they will last anyway!

Gavin83

nobertgreen wrote: »

I am part of a small team working on certain types of special jobs. The team consists of myself, another individual with whom I work closely and share workload, and a supervisor. The other person is at my pay grade and has been with the company marginally longer, but has several less years experience and often relies on my expertise.

Due to external pressures the team size is being cut to one person and a supervisor. I have been selected as the person to cut, there are no opportunities outside this team and I am therefore facing redundancy.

I have not been told of the reason why I have been selected instead of my colleague and was quite surprised because I know we are at the same pay grade and as previously stated, I do not require as much supervision. However I am aware that this person is quite 'chummy' with some of the other more senior staff.

Is the company obliged to give a valid reason for having selected me?
Are they obliged to show me any metrics (such as appraisal scores) that they have used to make the decision (since this would necessarily require divulging the other persons scoring) or are they allowed to give a vague or unsubstantiated explanation?

Under no circumstances should they be giving you someone elses appraisal scores, although they can give you yours. However without anyone elses it's effectively useless information anyway.

Are you sure they don't operate a last in, first out policy? I was under the impression this is how most companies work so despite how good you may or may not be at the job you'll be the first out regardless.

sangie595

Gavin83 wrote: »

Are you sure they don't operate a last in, first out policy? I was under the impression this is how most companies work so despite how good you may or may not be at the job you'll be the first out regardless.

That would be potentially age discrimination, and few companies follow that policy now for fear of a tribunal claim on the grounds of discrimination. Discrimination claims can be the most costly.

Gavin83

sangie595 wrote: »

That would be potentially age discrimination, and few companies follow that policy now for fear of a tribunal claim on the grounds of discrimination. Discrimination claims can be the most costly.

Fair enough. Everyone that I know who has been made redundant has been via this method. I clearly just know the people who work at those few companies.

sangie595

Gavin83 wrote: »

Fair enough. Everyone that I know who has been made redundant has been via this method. I clearly just know the people who work at those few companies.

Or people who don't know their employment law! It's been pretty much made clear to employers that they should not select on length of service alone. And quite apart from the legal ramifications of doing that, it's a stupid method of selecting people. Working somewhere for a long time is not an indicator of ability or capability.

getmore4less

You will enter a consultation so consult.

In many cases the choice has been made but those that really care may not have been given the full picture.

Challenging the scores etc may be futile but discussing the business being able to deliver with the two people chosen is not.

identify where the business may struggle going forward, the people that your team delivers too are the ones that need to know if that is possible as they are the ones that suffer and pick up the pieces.

if you can identify skills experience that won't exist if you go it is fare to ask how they plan to fill the gap.

You could suggest garden leave, to give the company time to see if the plans of just having two people doing the job will work. once you are gone it may be too late to get you back if they subsequently realize they are short skilled.


or just go with the flow exit gracefully and find out they can cope.

Detroit

I believe the process is required to be transparent and fair, so you should be entitled to see the criteria used.
There are also legal requirements employers should follow depending on the number of people in the company effected.
It is possible to claim unfair selection for redundancy, and make other challenges if the employer fails to follow the correct procedure.
I would recommend you have a chat with ACAS to check your rights, particularly if you have a protected characteristic (race, disability, gender etc), and there is a possibility of discrimination.
While last in first out does risk age discrimination claims, it's still unofficially used in cases where the employees are fairly evenly matched. This is often simple economics, as it's obviously more expensive the longer the service, so shouldn't be taken personally.
Talk to ACAS, or go to CAB who can advise, and maybe refer you for free specialist employment advice.
You may not change the outcome, but if you feel strongly, it's worth looking into.